Semantics is commonly defined as “the study of meaning.” Any subject that covers a wide and diverse subject matter, such as “meaning,” will not be merely understood with a single sentence explanation. To begin understanding semantics, one must have a grasp on its different branches, including, general, conceptual, and lexical semantics. While there are almost endless branches, these three primary examples embody the native elements of semantics.
Semantics is not defined by black and white rules, rather, it exists in a gray zone. Semantics, by nature, is intertwined with philosophy, which makes defining and in-depth review a challenge for those who are unfamiliar with it. First and foremost, we must look at semantics as we would look at the
…show more content…
In General Semantics, focus is placed on what the implication of the word being defined is, and how to use it for better communication, via symbols and words. General Semantics looks at how every word carries its own unique set of implications, and how these implications can shift the determined meaning of what you say. The viewpoint of this branch of semantics is that every word carries with it certain images and feeling, which interpret differently to individual people. By clarifying and defining the meanings behind words, General Semantics hopes to lessen the conflict that can arise from misinterpretation. When practiced correctly, General Semantics can make communication more effective by avoiding the misinterpretation that can occur when two speakers do not have the same understanding of a word, term, or phrase. The “Father of General Semantics” is Alfred Korzybski. Korzybski tries to make the point that in General Semantics “the words are not the thing.” This type of thinking takes a step away from older, aristotleliana thinking, and moves toward modern scientific thinking. “Korzybski promoted the teaching of modern scientific thinking to resolve problems with human sanity, with implications for everyday behavior, emotions, thought, and language,” (Hauck). General Semantics is a tool used to develop positive mental attitudes, which are better equipped to deal with critical thinking. Despite its usefulness, General Semantics face many challenges in the intellectual field. “On a Practical level, perhaps the school system that ‘teaches to the test’ is the biggest hurdle.”(Hauck) Hauck makes the point, that if no one is teaching General Semantics its uses become obsolete, and few places of learning bother with it. Another drawback of General Semantics is its age. Although General Semantics faces the occasional dilemma, it is still useful in its employment and is a vital tool in communication.
In “Defending Against the Indefensible” by Neil Postman, he proposes a different way of viewing the English language. He says that our civilization is being manipulated by the ambiguity in English, and students are most easily affected by the school environment. Thus, he proposes seven key ideas that students should remember in order to avoid the dangers and loopholes that twist the original meaning of statements.
First, a brief background in the three dimensions of language discussed throughout this paper. The functional, semantic, or thematic dimensions of language as previously mentioned are often used in parallel with each other. Due, to this fact it is important to be able to identify them as they take place and differentiate between these dimensions i...
Throughout I. A. Richards' career, he focused his attention on meaning within communication. Richards was intrigued by meaning and how it was created and presented in communicative interactions. Richards primarily studied language and how its usage often leads to misunderstandings between sender and receiver. Richards had several notions as to the causes of misunderstandings within communication. He primarily believed that misunderstandings were due to what he termed the "proper meaning superstition." Richards' proper meaning superstition was a direct attack to the theorists of the time. These theorists held the firm belief that words held meaning and that when people use these words they were effectively communicating. Richards strongly disagreed. In fact, Richards' proper meaning superstition stated the exact opposite. The proper meaning superstition states that there is a false belief that each word holds a specific, concise meaning that is generally understood by all. Richards maintained that meaning was created in each individual and it was a result and a collection of that individual's past experiences. As a result of the idea that no two individuals are alike, no two meanings can be the for any given word. (Fordham, 1996, internet).
At some point in our lives, we have wondered about the possibility of a computer being able to think. John Searle addresses this issue in his paper, “Can Computers Think?”, where he argues that computers cannot think because they are directed by formal information. This means that the information presented is only syntax with no semantics behind it. In this paper, I will elaborate more on Searle’s position and reasoning whilst critiquing his argument by saying that it is possible to derive semantics from syntax. Finally, I will analyze the significance of my criticism and present a possible response from Searle to defend his argument.
Uexküll, Jakob Von, and Jakob Von Uexküll. "Theory of Meaning." A Foray into the Worlds of Animals and Humans: With A Theory of Meaning. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010. 139-205. Print.
Content in language includes the main component of semantics. Semantics is the set of rules that provide meaning to words or content to word combinations. Semantics can be mutually exclusive or they can overlap. The symbols and words that are used represent our concepts or ideas about reality instead of reality itself. The meaning of words encompasses two
Curzan, Anne and Adams, Michael. How English Works: A Linguistic Introduction. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006
Gottlob Frege (1) asserts that, in addition to the denotation of a sign (2), there is also a meaning attached. (3) The denotation is the specific thing that a sign refers to. The meaning, however, is the actual intention behind using the sign. It follows from this distinction that signs may be identical, but have different functions in a proposition. When it comes to meanings, it is not necessarily the case that the respective denotations of the same sign are equivalent. In fact, Frege argues, there may well be meaning without any denotation whatsoever. As an example, he uses 'the celestial body most distant from the Earth'. While this expression most likely has meaning, it is doubtful that it denotes anything. Frege concludes, "In grasping a (meaning), one is not certainly assured of (denoting) anything". (4) Yet, Frege admits, we must presuppose that there is, indeed a denotation, in order to grasp the meaning. He admits that while we may be mistaken in our assumption, the importance lies in the intention of the speaker, not in the existence of the denotation.
George Herbert Mead begins his discussion of symbolic interactionism (talking with others) by defining three core principles that deal with meaning, language, and thought. The theory states that meaning is the construction of social reality. Humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things.
The Pragmatic Theory. Searle proposed an account of metaphor that takes Davidson’s theory even further than the Naïve theory and rejects the idea of linguistic ambiguity idea (Lycan 184). Metaphorical utterance is taken to be a linguistic communication and it posits a cognitive mechanism that computes something that could be called metaphorical meaning. This theory of metaphor is the most compelling because metaphor is seen as simply of species of Gricean communication. The problem of explaining how we understand metaphor is a case of explaining how speaker meaning and sentence meaning can be divergent. Gricean logic can provide an instructive way to break down the problem of metaphorical meaning. This theory is the most plausible and overcomes Davidson’s leading objections to metaphorical meaning.
Semantics can be defined as the study of "meaning" of lexical words and expressions independently of context. Where pragmatics is the process of recognising the "invisible meaning" of lexical items and expressions; taking into account the speaker's/ addressee's intention, the status of hearer/ receiver and the actual situation.
Prarthana,S. & Prema, K. (2012). Role of Semantics in the Organization of Mental Lexicon. Language in India.259-277.
Computational linguistics is a discipline between linguistics and computer science which is concerned with the computational aspects of the human language. This area of computer science overlaps with the field of Artificial Intelligence. Basically, computational linguistics is a series of programs that interprets human speech into words and actions. There are a couple of different areas of computational linguistics and those areas are theoretical computational linguistics and applied computational linguistics. Each one of those areas are divided up into more areas.
Pragmatics focuses on language use within a given social environment, analysing how people interpret the various meanings language conveys. Yet, miscommunication arises due to situational contexts and thus, pragmatists “focus on what is not explicitly stated”, instead emphasising “what is communicated by the manner and style of utterance” (Finch, 2000). Consider a sign saying “Garage sale.” Naturally, without further information, we understand that there is a sale within an individual’s garage, rather than actual garages being sold. The example highlights how pragmatics furthers the understanding of an interpretation that is found past the words. This deep-seated meaning is transparent not by the reason of the semantics of the words themselves, but due to the contextual knowledge that is widely known. Ultimately pragmatics is the study of the ambiguity of language, as it examines the multiple meanings each sentence may have, which may lead to confusion, conflict and ambiguity. Therefore a sound understanding of pragmatics, may lead to a reduction in conflicts betw...