Elucidations of meaning* (original) (raw)
Related papers
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.
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.
Theories of Semantics: Merits and Limitations
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.
Introduction to the Science of Meaning
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.
On the Very Idea of a Theory of Meaning for a Natural Language
Synthese, 1997
A certain orthodoxy has it that understanding is essentially computational: that information about what a sentence means is something that may be generated by means of a derivational process from information about the significance of the sentence’s constituent parts and of the ways in which they are put together. And that it is therefore fruitful to study formal theories acceptable as compositional theories of meaning for natural languages: theories that deliver for each sentence of their object-language a theorem acceptable as statement of its meaning and derivable from axioms characterizing subsentential expressions and operations forming that sentence. This paper is to show that there is something deeply wrong with these ideas, namely that they are based on a certain confusion about ascriptions of semantic knowledge. The paper is to make this point by considering a semantic theorist who has explicit knowledge of a theory of truth for L. And by showing that all the theorist needs ...
ON SOME MECHANISMS OF REPRESENTATION OF MEANING IN NATURAL LANGUAGES
The aim of this research is to try to understand the mental mechanisms involved in understanding natural language by observing and simulating on computer the re lationships between texts and corresponding formal structures in small problem a reas where tasks for the computer are sufficiently clear.
How To Assess Theories of Meaning? Some Notes on the Methodology of Semantics
The paper presents the two-level approach to the assessment of theories of meaning. The distinctions between a language and the model of language are developed. Similarly, the category of meaning is separated from the model of meaning. It is argued that the first level of assessment of a theory is concerned with the relation of a model of meaning to intra-theoretical aims and assumptions of respective theory with specific model of language. The second level of assessment of a theory is concerned with the ontological, epistemological, logical and related assumptions underlying the respective model of language. Finally, several questions are set forth as the methodological directives for an elucidation of hidden assumptions behind the theories of meaning. Key words: language, model of language, meaning, model of meaning, methodology 1
2000
The present work is a plea for a cognitive-based view of lexical meaning. Traditional, usually taxonomically based descriptions such as trees or feature bundles are rather reductive and abstract and often cannot thoroughly represent reality. They lack a psychological foundation. This has been criticized repeatedly as a serious flaw in recent years. This article investigates how the meaning of words might be represented in a neurobiologically plausible way. To this end, the development of early word acquisition is described with several recurring phenomena, such as early underextensions, later overextensions, the interplay of linguistic and non-linguistic aspects and variable word-referent-mappings. The data are then explained in the light of network processing. In such an approach, the development of a category is seen to be influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Lexical acquisition means building a pattern of nodes and connections that represents a cognitive concept, buildi...