Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
References

The Study of Meaning Second edition -revised and updated

Profile image of xin yangxin yang

Abstract
sparkles

AI

The revised second edition of "The Study of Meaning" delves into the critical role semantics plays in communication and cognitive processes, positioning it at the intersection of linguistics, philosophy, and psychology. The text navigates the complexities of meaning, challenging previous notions of semantics as a marginal field in linguistics, and argues for its integral role in understanding human language and thought. The author's approach prioritizes a unique exploration of semantics that incorporates various disciplines, ultimately seeking to enhance the clarity and rigor of semantic analysis.

Related papers

Semantics and Theories of Semantics
Zain Ez

Semantics is the study of meaning in language. We know that language is used to express meanings which can be understood by others. But meanings exist in our minds and we can express what is in our minds through the spoken and written forms of language (as well as through gestures, action etc.). The sound patterns of language are studied at the level of phonology and the organization of words and sentences is studied at the level of morphology and syntax. These are in turn organized in such a way that we can convey meaningful messages or receive and understand messages. 'How is language organized in order to be meaningful?' This is the question we ask and attempt to answer at the level of semantics. Semantics is that level of linguistic analysis where meaning is analyzed. It is the most abstract level of linguistic analysis, since we cannot see or observe meaning as we can observe and record sounds. Meaning is related very closely to the human capacity to think logically and to understand. So when we try to analyze meaning, we are trying to analyse our own capacity to think and understand, our own ability to create meaning. Semantics concerns itself with 'giving a systematic account of the nature of meaning' (Leech).

View PDFchevron_right
The Study of Meaning so Far
Aulamem A Shekara

Abstract Meaning has been the center of debates in the study of language for centuries. From classical Greek to Cognitive Linguistics. From been partially ignored by modern linguists like Bloomfield, Chomsky, and many others, to been “empirically” studied by Cognitive Linguists. The study of meaning still remain open ended in its conclusions. The open-endedness of the study of meaning has left many questions in its wake than it sets out to answer. That is one of the reasons why Bloomfield called it “weak” and Chomsky ignored it in his “Generative Grammar”. It is as a result of this weak background that Cognitive Linguistics emerged. From its traditional approach (Semantics) to its modern approach (Cognitive Linguistics), the study of meaning is yet to be boldly called an empirical study of language. This article aims at highlighting the weakness of Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics as an introduction to both fields (Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics). This is because both fields are obsessed with meaning in language. Furthermore, because Cognitive Linguistics is an advanced study of Semantics, this article will focus on its weaknesses to highlight the weakness of the study of meaning in general. From there, solutions to some of the problems will be recommended.

View PDFchevron_right
Theories of Semantics: Merits and Limitations
Arab World English Journal (AWEJ)

Theories of Semantics: Merits and Limitations Saleh Mustafa Ramadan Al-Zaytoonah Private University of Jordan Amman, Jordan Taleb I. Ababneh Irbid National University-Jordan Irbid, Jordan Abstract Meaning is so intangible that one group of linguists , the structuralists , preferred not to deal with it or rely on it at all . It is a variable and not to be taken for granted. Nevertheless , many theories have been interested in the study of meaning. Because of the limited scope of this paper, the discussion will cover some of the well–known theories of meaning formulated in the last century. Mainly referential theory of meaning, non– referential theory of meaning and generative grammarian theory of meaning are discussed. Some assumptions, merits and limitations for each theory are also described. The researcher hopes that many people can benefit from this article since meaning is a complex concept and difficult to understand. Keywords: Generative Grammarian Theory, Meaning, Non-Referential Theory, Referential Theory, Semantics

View PDFchevron_right
Semantics-A-Coursebook-1
ramzi khedhiri

This practical coursebook introduces all the basics of semantics in a simple, step-bystep fashion. Each unit includes short sections of explanation with examples, followed by stimulating practice exercises to complete the book. Feedback and comment sections follow each exercise to enable students to monitor their progress. No previous background in semantics is assumed, as students begin by discovering the value and fascination of the subject and then move through all key topics in the field, including sense and reference, simple logic, word meaning, and interpersonal meaning. New study guides and exercises have been added to the end of each unit (with online answer key) to help reinforce and test learning. A completely new unit on non-literal language and metaphor, plus updates throughout the text, significantly expand the scope of the original edition to bring it up-to-date with the modern teaching of semantics for introductory courses in linguistics as well as intermediate students.

View PDFchevron_right
Semantics: Word and sentence meaning
Bernd Kortmann

English Linguistics: Essentials, 2020

Semantics (Greek semain-= to mean) is the only branch of linguistics which is exclusively concerned with meaning. Semantics studies the meaning or meaning potential of various kinds of expressions: words, phrases, and sentences. This chapter is mainly confined to the study of word meaning (lexical semantics; lexicology). Research in lexical semantics addresses the following questions: ■ How can the concept of meaning be elucidated, including the relation between meaning and external reality? ■ What are appropriate tools for analysing and describing meanings? ■ What kinds of semantic structures exist within the vocabulary (or: lexicon) of a language?

View PDFchevron_right
Introduction to the Science of Meaning
Brian Rabern

Oxford Scholarship Online, 2018

This Introduction aims to acquaint the reader with some of the main views on the foundations of natural language semantics, to discuss the type of phenomena semanticists study, and to give some basic technical background in compositional model-theoretic semantics necessary to understand the chapters in this collection. Topics discussed include truth conditions, compositionality, context-sensitivity, dynamic semantics, the relation of formal semantic theories to the theoretical apparatus of reference and propositions current in much philosophy of language, what semantic theories aim to explain, realism, the metaphysics of language and different views of the relation between languages and speakers, and the epistemology of semantics.

View PDFchevron_right
The Routledge Handbook of Semantics (ed. Nick Reimer): Book Review
Tyler Horton

Journal of Language, Culture, and Religion 4.1, 2023

View PDFchevron_right
iif_kgpm_Hurford J. R., Heasley B. Semantics. A Coursebook. (1).pdf
Hilma Suryani

This practical coursebook introduces all the basics of semantics in a simple, step-bystep fashion. Each unit includes short sections of explanation with examples, followed by stimulating practice exercises to complete the book. Feedback and comment sections follow each exercise to enable students to monitor their progress. No previous background in semantics is assumed, as students begin by discovering the value and fascination of the subject and then move through all key topics in the field, including sense and reference, simple logic, word meaning, and interpersonal meaning. New study guides and exercises have been added to the end of each unit (with online answer key) to help reinforce and test learning. A completely new unit on non-literal language and metaphor, plus updates throughout the text, significantly expand the scope of the original edition to bring it up-to-date with the modern teaching of semantics for introductory courses in linguistics as well as intermediate students.

View PDFchevron_right
6 SEMANTICS The Study of Meaning
Kali Grafía
View PDFchevron_right
Semantics. A Coursebook.pdf
Ali Safari

This practical coursebook introduces all the basics of semantics in a simple, step-bystep fashion. Each unit includes short sections of explanation with examples, followed by stimulating practice exercises to complete the book. Feedback and comment sections follow each exercise to enable students to monitor their progress. No previous background in semantics is assumed, as students begin by discovering the value and fascination of the subject and then move through all key topics in the field, including sense and reference, simple logic, word meaning, and interpersonal meaning. New study guides and exercises have been added to the end of each unit (with online answer key) to help reinforce and test learning. A completely new unit on non-literal language and metaphor, plus updates throughout the text, significantly expand the scope of the original edition to bring it up-to-date with the modern teaching of semantics for introductory courses in linguistics as well as intermediate students.

View PDFchevron_right

References (221)

  1. Semantic 句栩如揣配e and 'Deep Seman伽:s' The rules of implication in this chapter and in Ch. 12 are dealt with more technically, under the heading of ' rules of synonymy', in Leech, Semantic Description, Ch. 4. The names of some rules have been changed. The use of graphs or networks in the representation of 'deep semantics' is paralleled in the work of Hofmann ('Semantic Studies III'), and of Mel' cuk and his c。"worker电 ('Towards').
  2. Presupp假面tions Recent views and trends in the study of presupposition are assembled in Oh and Dinneen, Syntax and Semantics，门， and Sag and Prince's ' Bibliography' in that volume gives access to a vast literature on the s注均ect. Philosophical prec山sors of the presupposition debate are Russell,'On De- noting', and Strawson，毛On Referring,' in which the concepts of d， φnite description and of presupposition are respectively introduced. Useful background articles are Garner,'Presupposition', and Keenen，才wo Kinds of Presupposition'. Wilson, Presupposition, and Kem(1son, Presupposition, oppose logical theories of pre- supposition, and show how pragmatic explanations can be applied to presupposi- tional phenomena. The pragmatics of negation is explored by Givon,'Negation in Language'. The present approach to presupposition is modelled on Gazdar's concept of ' potential presupposition' in Pragmatics, and Bickerton's definition of presupposition as 'S entails P, -S implicates p '(in ' Where Pres注ppositions Come From').
  3. Cooper, Presuppositions, argues for an illocutionary approach to pre- supposition. On the relation between presupposition and factors of focus and topic, see Allerton, 'The Notion of ''Givenness"二 and Sgall, 'Conditions', as well as Chomsky,'Deep Structure'. On the function of topic or theme generally, see Firbas,'On Defining', and Li. Subjel't and Topic. 15. Fae创1ality
  4. On factuality and its relation to presupposition and implication, see Kiparsky and Kiparsky,'"Fact"', Karttunen,'Implicative Verbs', Karttunen,'Presupposi- tions of Compound Sentences', and (at a less technical level) Leech, English Verb, Ch. 7. On the relation between different kinds of abstraction, see Vendler,'Facts and Events', and Peterson,'On Representing Event Reference'. On metalanguage and reference to propositions, see Leech, Explorations, Ch. 2.
  5. S创nan"cs 剑挝 Pra叙natics The seminal philosophical works (all highly readable) are Austin, How to Do Things with Words, Searle, Speech Acts, and Grice,'Logic and Conversation'. For a brief introduction to s阴阳h-act theory, see Coulthard, Discourse Analysis. There are many critiques of the performative analysis. See, for example, Searle,'Speech ADAMS, v. (1973), An Introduction to Word-Formation, London: Longman.
  6. AKMAJIAN, A., and HENY, F. (1975), An Introduction to the Principles of Trans啕 formational Syntax, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
  7. ALLERTON, D. J. (1978),'The Notion of ''Givenness'' and its Relations to Pre- supposition and to Theme,' Lingua, 44. 133-68.
  8. ALSτON, w. P. ( 1964), Philosophy of Language, Englewood Cli酶， N. J .: Prentice- AUSτ阳， J. L. (1962), How to Do Things with Words, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  9. BACH, EM MON, and HARMS, R.τ. (eds.) ( 1968), Universals in Language、 New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  10. BENDIX, E. 日. (1966), Componential Analysis of General Vocabulary (Part 2 of International Journal of American Linguistics, 32), Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press; The Hague: Mouton.
  11. BEN 闸门，。. c. (1975), Spatial and Temporal Uses of English Prepositions, London: Longman.
  12. BERLIN，鼠， BREEDLOVE, D. 旦， and RA v EN, P. H. ( 197 4), Principles of Tzeltal Plant Classification, New York: Academic Press.
  13. BERLIN, B., and KAY, P. (1969), Basic Color Terms, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University ofCalifomia Press.
  14. BERNE, ER I c ( l 966), Games People Play: the Psychology of Human Relationships, London: Andr1击 Deutsch.
  15. BERτA LANFFY, L. VON (1973), General Systems Theory, Harmondsworth: Penguin. (First published in 1968.)
  16. BICKERτON, D. (1979),'Where Presuppositions Come From'. In Oh and Dinneen ( 1979), 235一48.
  17. BIER WISC 日， M. (1967),'Some Semantic Universals of German Adjectivals', Foundations of Language, 3. l 一36.
  18. BIER WISC 日， M. (l 969),'On Certain Problems of Semantic Representation•. Foundations of Language, 5. 153-84.
  19. BIER WISC 日， M. ( 1970),'Semantics'. In Lyons (ed.) (1970).
  20. BIER WISC 日，悦， and HEIDOLP 日， K. ( 1970), Progress in Linguistics, The Hague: Mouton.
  21. BINNICK, R. I., DAVISON, A., GREEN, G. M., and MORGAN, J. L. (eds.) (1969), 'Papers from the Fifih Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago: Department of Linguistics, University of Chicago.
  22. BLACK, MAX (1949),'Korzybski's General Semantics'. In Language and Philo- sophy, Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.
  23. BLACK, MAX (1968), The Labyrinth of Language, Harmondsworth: Pen伊in.
  24. BLOOMFIELD, L. (1933(5), Lang削！ge, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston' 1933; London: Allen & U nwin, 1935.
  25. BOLINGER，。. L. ( 1965), 'The Atomization of Meaning,' Language, 41. 555叩73. BOLINGER, o. L. (1977), Meaning and Form, London: Longman.
  26. BOLING 军队。. L. ( 1980), Language 叩 the loaded Weapon, London: Longman.
  27. BOWERMAN, M. (1976), 'Semantic Factors in the Acquisition of Rules for Word Use and Sentence Structure'. In Morehead, D. M 呵 and Morehead、 A E. (eds.). Normal and D拼cient Child Language、 Baltimore: University Park 阳"CSS (1976)' 99斗 79.
  28. BROWN ，泣， and LEVINSON, s. (1978), 'Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena'. In Goody, E. N. (ed.), Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social lntera£•tion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press ( 1978)' 56-289.
  29. BROWN，氏， and GILMAN, A. (1960),'Pronouns of Power and Solidarity'. In Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Style in language, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press ( 1960), 253一76.
  30. BO 日 LER, KARL(l934), Sprachtheor缸， Jena: Fischer.
  31. CARDEN, G. ( 1973), English Q阔别脚＇ rs: Logical Structu四 and linguistic Variation. Tokyo: Taishukan.
  32. CARN AP, R. ( 1956), Meaning and Necessity, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  33. CARROLL, J. B. (1959), review of Osgood, Suci and Tannenbaum (1957). In Language, 35, 58-77.
  34. CHAFE, w ALLACE ( 1970), Meaning and the Structure of Lan伊＇ age, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  35. CHAFE, WALLACE(l97J ),'Directionality and Paraphrase二 Lang四ge龟 47、 1-26.
  36. CHASE, SτUARτ ( 1937), 11加 Tyranny of Words, New York: Har℃ourt, Brace Jovanovich.
  37. CHOMSKY, N. (1957), Syntactic Structures, Tt始 Hagi隐： Mouton.
  38. CHOMSKY, N. ( 1964), Current Issues in linguistic Theor)". The Hague: Mouton. CHOMSKY, N. (1965), Aspects of t加 Theory of Syntax, C创nbridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
  39. CHOMSKY, N. (1966)、 Cartesian linguistics, New York and London: "arper & Row. CHOMSKY, N. (1968), Language and Mind, New York: "an:ourt. Bra1臼 Jovano vich. CHOMSKY, N. ( 1970). 'Deep Structure. Surface Structure,' and Semantic lnterpre- tation'. In Jakobson, R叫 and Kawamoto、 S. (eds.), Studies in General and Oriental linguistics, Tokyo: T.E.C. Company ( 1970). Reprinted in Chomsky (1972).
  40. CHOMSKY, N. (1972), Studies on Semantics in Generative Grammar, The Hague: Mouton.
  41. CHOMSKY, N. ( 1976), Reflections on Lan伊age, London: Temple Smith. CHOMSKY, N. (1980),'On Binding', Lin伊istic In伊仰， i I. l 斗6.
  42. CHOMSKY, N., and HALLE, M. (1968), The Sound Pattern of English, New York: Harper & Row.
  43. CHOMSKY, N. and RONAτ， M. ( 1979), Language and Re.咿onsibifity (translated from the French by J. Viertel), Sussex: Harvester Press.
  44. CLARK, E. V. (1973),'What's in a Word? On the Child's Acquisition of Semantics in his First Language.' In Moore, T. E. (ed.), Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of Language, New York: Academic Press (1973), 65-110.
  45. CLARK,"-". (1970),'Word Ass时iations and Lin伊istic Theory'. In Lyons (ed.) (1970), 271 甲86.
  46. CLARK，"•疵， and CLARK, E. v. (1977), Psychology and Language: an Intro- duction to Ps;•cholinguistics. New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
  47. COLE, P. (ed.) (1978), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 9: Pragmatics, New York: Academic Press.
  48. COLE, P吁 and MORGAN, J. L. (eds.) (1975), Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press.
  49. COMRIE, B. (1976), Aspect, London: Cambridge University Press.
  50. CONKLIN,". c. ( 1955),'Hanunoo Color Categories', Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, I J. 339斗4.
  51. COOK, WALTER J. (1969), Introduction to Tagmemic Analysis, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  52. COOPER, o. (1974), Presuppositions, The Hague: Mouton.
  53. COULTHARD, M. (1977), An Introduction to Discourse Analysis, London: Long- man. CRYSTAL, D., and DAVY, D. (1969), Investigating English Style, London: Long- man. DAHL, 0., ANDERSON， ι. -G., and ALLWOOD, J. (1976), Logic in Linguistics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  54. 。' ANDRADE，民. G. (1970), 'Structure and Syntax in the Semantic Analysis of Kinship Terminologies'. In Garvin, P. L. (ed.), Cognition: A Multiple View, New York: Spartan Books ( 1970), 87-143.
  55. DASC AL，悦， and ADLE 泉， M. ( 1979),'A New Look at Componential Analysis', Semiotica, 26. 157甲80.
  56. EMON DS. J.E. ( 1976). A Transformational Approac•h to English S1•nta.JC, New York: Academic Press.
  57. ERVIN-TRIPP, s. (1974), 'Sociolinguistics' In Berkovitz, L. (ed.), Advant•es in E.JCperimental So£•ial Ps;•c•holog;'. Vol. 4, New York: Academic Press ( 1974 ).
  58. FILLENBAUM, s., and 汉 APOPORτ， •A. ( 1971 ), Structures in the Si均；ective Lexicon, New York: Academic Press.
  59. FILLMORE, c. J. (1966), 'Deictic Categories and the Semantics of ''Come''', foundations of Language, 2. 219-27.
  60. FILLMORE, C. J. (1968),'The Case for Case'. In Bach and Harms (eds:) ( 1968).
  61. FILLMORE, c. J. (1969), 'Types of Lexical Information'. In Kiefer (此)( 1969).
  62. FILLMORE、 C.J.(1971 )，'Verbs of Judging: an Exercise in Semantic Description' In Fillmore and Langendoen (eds.) ( 1971 ).
  63. FILLMORE, c. J. (1977). 'Topics in Lexical Semantics'. In Cole, R. W. (ed.), Current Issues in Linguisti£• Theor;, Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press ( 1977 ), 76-138.
  64. FILLMORE, r. J., and LANGENDOEN, D. T. (eds.) (197"' Studies in Linguistic Sen1antic•s. New York. Holt. Rinehart & Winston Bibliography 371
  65. FIRBAS, J. (1964),'On Defining the Theme in Functional Sentence Analysis', Travaux Lin♂tistiques de Prague, I. 267-80.
  66. FIRτ 日， J. R. (1957), Papers in Linguistics 1934-51, London: Oxford University Press.
  67. FIRτ 日， J. R. ( 1964), Speech and The Tongues o.I• Men, London: Oxford University Press (Language and Language Learning 2). (First editions: Speech, 1930; The Tongues o.I• Men, 1937.)
  68. FODOR, J. D. (1978), Semanli(宫 Theories o,f Meaning in Generative Grammar, Sussex: Harvester Press.
  69. FODOR, J. A叫 and KAτz, J. J. (eds.) ( 1964), The Stru£•ture oj Language: Readings in the Philosophy o,f' Language、 Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall.
  70. FORBES, 1. (1979), 'The Terms Brun and Marron in Modern Standard French', J<Jurnal o,/' Linguistic•s, 15.2. 295-306.
  71. FRAKE, C. 0. (1969),'Ethnographic Study of Cognitive Systems'. In Tyler (ed.) ( 1969), 28--41.
  72. GARNER, RICHARD (1971 ),''' Presupposition'' in Philosophy and Linguistics'. In Fillmor吉 and Langendoen 付出. ) ( 1971 ), 23--44.
  73. GAZDA 泉， G. (1979), Pragmatics: lmplicature. Presupposition and Logical Form, New York: Academic Press.
  74. GIVON， τ. ( 1978), 'Negation in Language: Pragmatics，俨unction. Ontology'. In Cole (ed.) (1978), 69…112.
  75. GOODENOUGH, W. ". (1956),'Componential Analysis and the Study of Meaning', Language, 32. 195-216.
  76. GOODENOUGH, W. H. (1965 )，'Yank优 Kinship Terminology: a Problem in Com- ponential Analysis'. In Hammel (ed.) (1965).
  77. GOODENOUGH, w. H. (1970), Description and Comparison in Cultural Anthro- pology, Chicago: Aldine.
  78. GORDON，队， and LAKOFF, G. (1971 )，℃onversational Postulates', Papers from the Seventh Regional Meeting of the Ch1ccigo Linguistic Society, Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society, 63-85. Reprinted in Cole and Morgan (eds.) (1975).
  79. GORDON, T. w. ( 1980), Semantics: a BibliographJ'. 1965一 1978, New York: Scarecrow Press.
  80. GRICE,". P. (1975), 'Logic and Conversation'. In Cole and Morgan (eds.) ( 1975), 41 一58.
  81. G UIRAUD, P. (1975), Semiology (translated from the French by G. Cross), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  82. HALLIDAY, M.A. K. (1961 ),'Categories of the Theory of Grammar,' Word, 11. 241-92.
  83. HALLIDAY，悦 A. K. (1967/8), 'Notes on Transitivity and Theme in English', Journal of Linguistics, 3. 37-81; 3. 199-244; and 4. 179一215.
  84. HALLIDAY, M. A. K. (1970),'Language Structure and Language Function'. In Lyons (ed.) (1970), 140--65.
  85. HALLIDAY, M. A. K .• and HASAN, R. (1976), Cohesion in English, London: Longman.
  86. HAMMEL., E. A. (ed.) (1965), Formal Semantic Analysis. Special Publication of American Anthropologist, 61. HAWKINS; J. A. (1978), D吃finiteness and Ind.侨niteness, London: Croom Helm. HAY A KA w A, s. 1. ( 1978), Language in Thought and Action, 4th edition, New York: Harcourt, Brace Jovanovich.
  87. HEIDER吨 E. R. ( 1972 )，飞Jniversals in Color Naming and Memory', Journal of' Experimental Psychology, 93. 10一20.
  88. HERBST、 T. ' H EA TH. D., and D 芭 DERDING，". M. ( 1980 )、 Grimm 's Grandchildren: Current Topic•s in German linguistic•s, London: Longman.
  89. HJELMSLEV, LOUIS( 1953), Prolegomena lo a η1e<Jr;• oj language (translated from the Danish ( 1943) by Francis J. Whitfield). Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana Univer」 sity Press.
  90. "。 FMANN, T. R. (1974.的， Bibliograph;• on the Semantic•s of' Human language. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press HOFMAN N、 T. R. (I 974b). •semantic Studies III', Language Sc•ienc•es. 30. 13甲
  91. HOGG, R. M. (1977), English Quantifier s.i•stems, Amsterdam: North Holland.
  92. "ORN, L. R. (1976)、 On the Semantic• Properties of logical Operators in English. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
  93. HOUSEHOLDER、 F. W 叫 and SA PORT A, s. ( 1962), Pr<ihlems of le:'(ic•ographψi•. Bloomington 、 Ind.: Indiana University Press.
  94. HUDSON, R. A. (1975 )，'τhe Meaning of Questions', Language, 51. 1-31.
  95. IK EGA MI, Y. ( 1969), The Semological Structure of the English Verbs o,f Motion, Tokyo: Sanseido.
  96. JACKENDOFF, R. s. (1972), Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
  97. JACKENDOFF, R. S. (1975),'Morphological and Semantic Regularities in the Lexicon', Lang11age, 51. 639--71.
  98. JACOBS, R. A., and ROS 缸 NBAUM, P. s. (eds.) (1970), Readings in English Trans- j'ormational Grammar, Waltham, Mass.: Blaisdell.
  99. JAKOBSON ，在. ( 1960),'Linguistics and Poetics'. In Sebeo~. T. A. (ed.), Style in language, Cambridge, Mass .. M.I. T. Press ( 1960).
  100. KARTTUNEN, L. (1971), 'Implicative Verbs', language, 47. 340--58.
  101. KAR TTU N EN, L. ( 1973), 'Presuppositions of Compound Sentences', linguistic Inquiry, 4. 169-93.
  102. KATZ, J. J. (1964a),'Mentalism in Linguistics', Language, 40. 124--37.
  103. KATZ, J. J. (I 964b),'Analyticity and Contradiction in Natural Language'. In Fodor and Katz (eds.) ( 1964), 519-43.
  104. KATZ. J. J. (1966), The Philosoph;• of Language, New York and London: Harper & Row. KATZ, J. J. ( 1972), Semantic Theory, New York: Harper & Row.
  105. KATZ、 J.J.(1980 )、℃ homsky on Meaning', language, 56. 1-41.
  106. KAT z. J. J., and FODOR, J. A. ( 1963),'The Structure of a Semantic Theory', language, 39. 170--210.
  107. KATZ, J. J., and POSTAL, P. M. (1964), An Integrated Theor;• of Linguistic Descr伊tions, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
  108. KAY, p. (1975),'Synchronic Variability and Diachronic Changes in Basic Color Terms', Language in Society, 4. 257一70.
  109. KEENAN, E. L. (1971), 'Two Kinds of Presupposition in Natural Language'. In Fillmore and Langendoen (eds.) (1971), 45-54.
  110. KEENAN, E. L. (ed.) (1975), Formal Semantics of Natural Language, London: Cambridge University Press.
  111. KEMPSON, R. M. ( 1975), Presupposition and the Delimitation of Semantics. London: Cambridge University Press.
  112. KEMPSON, R. M. (1977), Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  113. KEMPSON，民．悦(！"的，'Ambiguity and Word Meaning'. In Greenbaum, S叫 et al. (eds.) Studies in English linguistil汇 jor Randolph Quirk, London: Longman ( 1980). 7-16.
  114. KIEFER, F. (ed.) (1969), Studies in Syntax and Semantics, Dordr前ht: Reidel.
  115. KIPARSKY, P叫 and KIPARSKY噜 c. (1970)，川Fact"'. In Bierwisch and Heidolph ( 1970), 143-73.
  116. KOOIJ, J. (1971), Ambiguity in Natural Language, Amsterdam: North Holland. KOR z YBS K 1, A. ( 1933), Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non" Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics, Lancaster, Pa.: International Non-Aristotelian Library; 4th edition, 1958.
  117. LABOv, w. (1973), 'The Boundaries of Words and their Meanings'. In Bailey. C.-J. N叫 and Shuy, R. W. (eds.), New Ways oj Ana抄＇ Zing Variation in English, Washington. D.C.: Georgetown University Press (1973).
  118. KOFF, G. (1968),'Instrumental Adverbs and the Concept of Deep Structure', Foundations of Lan.♂1age, 4. 4… 29.
  119. LAKOFF, G. (1970), linguistics and Natural Logic, Ann Arbor: Phonetics Laboratory, University of Michigan. Revised version in Synthese, 22 (1971). 151-271.
  120. LAKOFF,G. (1971 ),'On Generative Semantics'. In Steinberg and Jakobovits (eds.) (1971), 232一96.
  121. LAKOFF, G. (1973),'Hedges and Meaning Criteria•. In McDavid, R .• and Duckert, A. R. (eds.), Lexicography in English, New York: New York Academy of Sciences ( 1973).
  122. LA KOFF, G. and JOHNSON, M. 。 980), Metaphors We live By, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  123. LAMB, SYDNEY M. (1964),'The Sememic Approach to Structural Semantics', American Anthropologist, 66. 3 (Part 2), 37-64.
  124. LEECH, G. N. ( 1969份， A linguistic Guide to English Poetry, London: Longman. ιEECH, G. N. ( 1969坊， Towards a Semantic Description oj• English, London: Longman. ιEECH, G. N. (1971), Meaning and the English Verb, London: Longman.
  125. LEECH, G. N. (1980), Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics, Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  126. LEECH, G. N. (1981 ),'Pragmatics and Conversational Rhetoric'. In Parret，自叶 et al. (eds.}, Possibilities and Limitations of Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins (1981).
  127. LEECH, G. N叫 and PEPIC 革 LLO, W. J. (1972),'Semantic versus 萨actual Knowledge: an Experimental Approach'. Published in Papers from the Symposium on Limiting the Domain of Linguistics, Milwaukee: Linguistics Department, Uni惕 versity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee ( 1972).
  128. LEHR 芭 R, A. ( 1974), Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure, Amsterdam: North Holland.
  129. LEMMON, E. J. (1964), Beginning Logic, London: Nelson.
  130. 挝、 c. (ed.) (1976), Su向；ect and Topic, New York: Academic Press.
  131. LOUNSBURY, F. G. (1956),'A Semantic Analysis of Pawnee Kinship Usage', Language, 32. 158 94.
  132. LOUNSBU 虱 Y, F. G. (1964时，＇ The Structural Analysis of Kinship Semantics'. In Lunt, H. G. (ed.), Proceedings oj the /Xth International Congress oj linguists, Mouton: The Hague ( 1974).
  133. LOUNSBURY, F. G. (1964b),'A Formal Account of Crow-and Omaha-type Kinship Terminologies'. In Goodenough, W. H. (ed.), Exp/orations in Cultural Anthropology, New York: McGraw Hill ( 1964).
  134. LOUNSBURY, F. G. (1965),'Another View of Trobriand Kinship Categories'. In Hammel (ed.) (1965).
  135. LOUNSBURY, F. G. (1969),'On Relativism and Kinship'. In Hook, Sidney (ed.), Language and Phi/osophJ•: a SJ•mposium, New York: New York University Press. Part I:'Language and Culture' ( 1969), 3一29.
  136. LURIA, A. R. (197白， Basic Problems of Neurolinguistics, The Hague: Mouton.
  137. LYONS, JOHN ( 1966), 'Firth's Theory of ''Meaning"'. In B昭告II, C. E叶 et al. (eds.), In Memory of J. R. Firth, New York: Humanities Press (1966).
  138. LYONS, JOHN (ed.) ( 1970), Nett• Hori=ons in linguistics, Harmondsworth: Penguin.
  139. LYONS, JOHN ( 1977), Semantics, Vols. I and II, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  140. MCCAWLEY, J. o. (1968), 'The Role of Semantics in a Grammar'. In Bach and Harms (eds.) (1968).
  141. MCCAWLEY, J. D. (1970a),'Where do Noun Phrases Come From?'. In Jacobs and Rosenbaum (eds.) (1970).
  142. MCCAWLEY, J. D. (1970坊，＇ English as a VS 0 Language,' Language, 46. 286-99.
  143. MCCAWL 缸 Y, J. o. ( 1973), Grammar and Meaning, Tokyo: Taishukan. Reissued, New York: Academic Press(l976}.
  144. MCCAWLEY, J. D. (198 门， Everything that Linguists have Always Wanted to Know about Logic* *but were ashamed to ask, ~hicago: University of Chicago Press.
  145. MCNEILL, N. B. (1972),'Colour and Colour Terminology,' Journal oj" Linguistics, 8. 21 33.
  146. MAGEE, B. (1973), Popper, London: Fontana/Collins.
  147. MAGEE, B. (presenter) (1978), Men of Ideas, London: British Broadcasting Corporation.
  148. MALINOWSKI, B. (1923), 'The Problem of Meaning in Primitive Languages'. Supplement I to Ogden and Richards ( 1923).
  149. MALINOWS Kl, B. ( 1935), Coral Gardens and their Magic, Vol. II: 'The Language of Magic and Gardening', London: Allen.
  150. MARCHAND, HANS (1969), The Categories and Types of Present-day English Word•" Formation, 2nd edition, Munich: Beck.
  151. MATτHEW趴在日. ( 1972), review of Jacobs and Rosenbaum ( 1970). In Journal of Linguistics, 8. 125甲36. Bibliography 375
  152. MEL' cuK, 1. A. (1973), 'Towards a Linguistic ''Meaning<-+Text" Model'. In Kieler, F. (ed.), Trends in Soviet Theoretical Linguistics, Dordrecht: Reidel (1973), 33一57.
  153. MILLER, G. A., and JOHNSON-LAIRD, P. N. (1976), Language and Perception' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  154. MORRIS, C 量IARLES w. (1955), Signs, Language and Behavior, E吨lewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
  155. MORRIS, DESMOND(l967), The Naked Ape, London: Cape. Reprinted as a Corg: Book ( 1969).
  156. N 1 DA, E. A. ( 1964), Towards a Science of Translating, Leiden: Brill. '.'llDA, E. A. (1975), Componential Ana.加is of Meaning, The Hague: Mouton. NILSEN. D. L F. and "llLSEN. 电. P. ( 1975), Semantit• Theor;•. u L1ngu1stic Perspective, Rowfi町， Mass.: Newbury House'
  157. O'DONNELL, W. 汰， and TODD, L. (1980), Variety in Contemporary English' London: Allen & Unwin.
  158. OGDEN, c. K. (1932), Opposition, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Reprinted by Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press ( 1968).
  159. OGDEN, C. K叫 and RICHARDS, 1. A. (1923), The Meaning of Meaning, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 8th edition, 1946.
  160. OH, C.-K吨 and DINNEEN，。. A. (1979), Syn1ax and Semantics, Vol. II, Presupposi- tions, New York: Academic Press.
  161. OLSHEWSKY， τ. M. (ed.) (1969}, Problems in the Philosophy of Language' New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  162. ORτONY, A. (ed.) (1979), Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: Cambr挝ge Uni- versity Press.
  163. 。汉 WELL, GEORGE (1961), 'Politics and the English Language'. In Collected Essays, 2nd edition. London: Secker & Warburg. (First published in 1946.)
  164. OSGOOD, c. E., SUCI, G. J., and TANNENBAUM, P.H. (1957), The Measurement of' Meaning, Urbana: University of Illinois Press; 2nd edition, 1967.
  165. PALMER, F. R. (1976), Semantic汇 A Ne•'• Outline, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  166. P 盯 ERSON, P. L. (1979),'On Representing Event Reference'. In Oh and Dinn优n (1979), 325-56.
  167. POPPER，民. R. (I 963), Conjectures and Refutations, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. POPPER, K. R. (1972), 0毫；el•tive Knowledge (revised editio时， Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  168. POSτAL, P. M. (1969), 'Anaphoric Islands'. In Binnick, et al. (eds.) (1969).
  169. POSτAL, P. M. (1971 时， Cross伽Over Phenomena, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  170. POSTAL, P. M. ( J 971 b ),'On the Surface Verb ''Remind'''. In Fillmore and Langendoen (eds.).
  171. POSTMAN, L, and KEPPEL, G. (1970), Norms of Word Associations, New York: Academic Press.
  172. PUTNAM,". (1975), Mind, Lal喀则！ ge and Rea/it；飞 Cambridge: Cambridge Uni" versity Press.
  173. QUINE, w. V. (I 饵"' Mathemati<•a/ logi<• (revised edition), New York: Harper & Row. QUINE, w. v. (1953), 'The Problem of Meaning in Linguistics'. In From a logic•al Point oj' View, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
  174. QUINE,W.v.(1960), Wordand O向；ect, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
  175. QUIRK, RANDOLP 日， GREENBAUM, s., LEECH, G., and SVARTVIK, J. (1972), A Grammar of Contemporary English, London: Longman; New York: Seminar Press.
  176. REICHENBACH, HANS (1966), E/ementsoj'Symboli<• Logic, New York: The Free Press. (First published in 1947.)
  177. ROSC 日， E. (1973), 'Linguistic Relativity'. In Silverstein, A. (ed.), Human Com" munication: Theoretical Perspectives, New York: Halsted Press ( 1974), 95一 121.
  178. ROSC 日， E. (1975 )，℃ognitive Reference Points', Cognitive Psychology, 7. 532-47.
  179. ROSCH，丑， and MER v 1s, c. B. (1975), 'Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories飞 Cognitive Psychology, 7. 573-605.
  180. ROSC 日， E., MER VIS, C'. 鼠， GRAY, w., JOHNSON, D., and BOYES" BRA EM, P. ( 1976), ' Basic Ot挂ects in Natural Categories', Cognitive Psychology, 8. 382-439.
  181. ROSS, J. 民( 1970), 'On Declarative Sentences'. In Jacobs and Rosenbaum 付出．) ( 1970).
  182. ROSS, J. R叶 and LAK。"' G. (1967),'ls D优P Structure Necessary?', unpublished paper. RUSSELL, B. (1905),'On Denoting'' Mind, 14. 479一93.
  183. SADOCK, J. (1974), Toward a Linguistic Theory oj Speech Acts, New York: Academic Press.
  184. SAMPSON, GEOFFREY (1970),'On the Need for a Phonological Base', Language. 46. 586--626.
  185. SAMPSON, GEOFFREY (1975), The Form of Language, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
  186. SAPIR,E.(1944),'Grading: a Study in Semantics', Philosophy of Science, 2. 93一 i 16. Reprinted in Sapir ( 1949).
  187. SA PIR, E. (1949), Selected W1灿1gs in Language, Culture, and Personality (edited by D. G. Mandelbaum), Berkeley: University of California Press.
  188. SAUSSURE, F. DE (1916), Cours de Linguistique Generate; Course in General Linguistics (translated from the French hy Wade Baski时， New York: Philo- sophical Library ( 1959).
  189. SEARLE, JOHN 虱．。 969), Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy oj Language, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  190. SEARLE, JOHN R. (I 975a),'Indirect Speech Acts'. In Cole and Morgan (eds.) ( 1975), 27-43.
  191. SEARLE, JOHN R. (1975b),'Speech Acts and Recent Linguistics', Annals of the Nett• Yor/.. Academy of Sciences, 263. 27-43.
  192. SE UREN, P. (ed.), Semantic Syntax, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  193. SGALL, P. (1975),'Conditions of the Use of Sentences and a Semantic Representa" tion of Topic and Focus'. In Keenan (1975), 297一312.
  194. SMITH, N., and WILSON, o. (1979), Modern Linguistics: the Resultsoj Chomsky's Revolution, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Bibliography 377
  195. sτAMPE, o. w. (1975), 'Meaning and Truth in the Theory of Speech Acts'. In Cole and Morgan (eds.) (1975), 1-39.
  196. STEINBERG, o. o. (1970), 'Ambiguity, Amphigory, and the Semantic lnterpreta- tion of Sentences', J<Jurnal a.I• Verbal Learning and Verhal Beha11i<Jr, 9. sτEINBERG, o. o., and JAKOBOVITS, L.A. (eds.) (1971), Semantics: An Inter- dis,•iplinary Reader, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  197. sτEIN 王R, G 军ORGE ( 1967). Language and Silen£•e: Essa)
  198. »~. 1958 1966' London: Faber.
  199. ST 虱 AWSON, P. F. (195的，＇On Referring', Mind, 59. 320 44. τRIER, JOSτ ( 1931 ), Der Deutsc•he W<Jrtsc•hat; im Sinnbe:irk de.~ Ver.~tandc's, Heidelberg: Winter.
  200. τYLER, SτEPHEN, A. (ed.) (1969), Cognitive Anthr<JP<J/<Jl{I二 New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
  201. L LMA N N, s. ( 1957), Pr inc•伊les o.I Semanti£'S, 2nd edition, Glasgow: Jackson; Oxford: Blackwell.
  202. ULLMANN, S. ( 1962), Semantic• an lntroduc• Jn l<J the S£•ienc•e ＜？／.儿leaning' Oxford: Blackwell.
  203. VENDLER, Z. ( 1967),'Facts and Events'. In Linguistic•s in PhilosophJ', Ithaca, N. Y .: Cornell University Press, 122-46.
  204. VERSCHUEREN, J. (1978), Pragmatics: An Annotated Bibliograph)', Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  205. w AL o RON, R. ( 196 7), Sense and Sense Development, London: Andre Deutsch.
  206. WEINREICH, u. ( 1958), 'Travels in Semantic Space,' Word, 14. 346-66.
  207. WEINREICH, U. (1962),'Lexicographic Definition in Descriptive Semantics'. In Householder and Saporta ( 1962).
  208. WEINREICH, U. (1963),'On the Semantic Structure of Language'. In Greenberg, J. (ed.), Universals of Language, Cambridge, Mass.: M.l.T. Press ( 1963).
  209. WEINREIC 日， u. (1964),'Webster'S Third: a Critique of its Semantics'. Inter- national Journal of American Linguistics, 30. 405…9.
  210. WEINREICH, U. (1966),'Explorations in Semantic Theory'. In Sebeok, T. A. (时．)， Current Trends in Linguistics, Vol. Ill, The Hague: Mouton (1966).
  211. WEISGERBER, J. L. (1953-4), Vom Weltbild der Deutschen Sprache, 2 volumes. Diisseldorf: Schwann.
  212. WHORF, B. L. (1956), Language, Thought, and Reality(edited by John B. Carroll), New York: Wiley.
  213. WILSON, DEIRDRE (1975), Presupposition and Non-Truth-Conditional Semantics, New York: Academic Press.
  214. WIττGENSτEI N, L. ( 1953), Philosophical Investigations, Oxford: Blackwell; New York: Macmillan.
  215. ZWICKY, A. M. (1973),'Linguistics as Chemistry: The Substance Theory of Linguistic Primes'. In Anderson, S. R叫 and Kiparsky, P. (eds.). A Festschr庐for Morris Halle, New York: Holt, Rinehan & Winston (1973), 467』85.
  216. •. Ross, J. R., 324-6, 328-9' 346
  217. Sampson, G., 77, 351
  218. Sapir, E., 27一8 science电 semantics as a, 59-88 scope, 273, 292, 299-300噜 see negation: quantifier
  219. Searle, J. R., 323、 328、 334, 338, 341 selection restrictions, 137-42, 219 semantic anomaly, 74-5、 149-50 semantic description, 80
  220. Semantic Differential. 18-19 semantic representation, 96, 269, 282-7 semantic s严cification, see definition semanticism, 319, 323, 334, 341 sense、 23 、 331, see conceptual meaning sentences, meaning of, 79啕 123-50 si~n, 63
  221. Signese, 95, 115. see notation significatum, 63

Related papers

Introduction: Semantics – a theory in search of an object. In Nick Riemer (ed.) The Routledge handbook of Semantics (Abingdon, Routledge, 2015)
Nick Riemer

"In its totalizing ambition, there are many reasons to think that the project of reductively characterizing semantic structure may be undesirable in itself. As Stanley Rosen notes, “every hermeneutical program is at the same time itself a political manifesto or the corollary of a political manifesto” (2003: 141). This applies a fortiori to the programme of linguistic semantics, the goal of which is not, as in (applied) hermeneutics, to interpret texts, but to give an account of the very constituents of meaning that any textual interpretation presupposes. Since semantic analyses of language – or, to give them an older name, attempts to identify the “language of thought” – are closely related to claims about the conceptual abilities of speakers and the cultural resources of communities, we semanticists surely should be – and often are – cautious in arguing for the theoretical uniqueness for our current models of meaning. Claiming that, from the point of view of the linguistic system, such and such an expression has such and such core or central semantic properties risks reductively diminishing our picture of the complexity of languages, and hence of the linguistic practices and conceptual and cultural richness of their speakers."

View PDFchevron_right
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1 Theory of Semantics
Widodo Ramadhona
View PDFchevron_right
The Reality Of The Controversy Surrounding The Concept Of Meaning In Semantics
Isaac Mhute

European Scientific Journal

This is a close analysis of the reality of the controversy surrounding the concept of meaning in semantics. Focus was basically placed on whether the so called failure to explain and disagreements on what meaning really is do exist or not. The paper assesses the so called failures of some of the popular theories explaining what meaning is in a bid to find out the truth of the matter. The paper characterises the failure or disagreement as a myth rather than a reality. It argues that there is generally not even a single one of the theories that is irrelevant as they all look at meaning from various angles and shed some very useful light on what meaning is. It is only that people tend to expect an all encompassing theory that does it all which has since proved very difficult considering the vastness of the ground covered by the concept. It suggests that people consider the theories as efforts focussing on different areas of the same aspect due to the fact that their respective proponents belong to different schools of thought.

View PDFchevron_right
The Nature of Meaning
Editorial Department

This paper examines meaning in language. It is therefore a study in semantics. Semantics is the study of meaning in terms of the linguistics. Semantics begins from the stopping point of syntax and ends from where pragmatics begins. A separate discipline in the study of language, semantics has existed for decades. The term semantics was first used by Breal in 1987 and it does not suggest that there had never been speculations about the nature of meaning (Ogbulogo (2005). Words, phrases and sentences are used to convey messages in natural languages. Semantics is the study of meaning systems in language. If meaning is a system, then language is systematic in nature. In this paper, we investigate the nature of meaning to locate the significance of semantics in contemporary linguistics. Frege, cited in Sandt (1988:1) rightly notes that “... [If ] anything is asserted there is always an obvious presupposition that the simple or compound proper names used have reference.” Hinging on different submissions in the literature, we conclude that meaning is: socio-cultural, dynamic, grammar-driven, conventional, representative (referential), individualistic (non-conventional) and is not exhaustive.

View PDFchevron_right
SEMANTICS & PRAGMATICS
Mithun Rozario

Semantics and Pragmatics, 2020

Meaning-making is at the center of all human communicative events. Communication is an exchange of meanings encoded in written or spoken words, non-verbal cues, signs, symbols, and so on. Creating, exchanging, and interpreting meaning is ingrained in human nature since prehistoric times. Language is the most sophisticated medium of communication. It is through language that we set meanings or in other words — refer, define, and signify the things in nature and the ideas in our mind. (Griffiths, 2017) The term ‘meaning of meaning’ was first coined by anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski in 1923. According to him meaning is related to multiple phenomena. It has various facets and these features are related to the external world (extra-linguistic factors) and the linguistic properties (phonetics, morphology, syntax, and semantics) The concept of meaning is vast and has many moving parts. Questing for the answer — ‘what is the meaning of meaning’ makes us take a multi-disciplinary approach; from linguistics, philosophy, neurology, to semiotics. In this essay, I will reflect on the meaning of ‘meaning’ from a multidisciplinary approach, discuss the challenges of doing meaning, and the role of context in understanding the meaning of words and sentences.

View PDFchevron_right
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved