Talk:Semantics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the discussion/talk page for: Semantics.
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| High | This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
In the main, semantics (from the Greek and in greek letters "σημαντικός" or "significant meaning," derived from sema, sign) is the study of meaning, in some sense of that term.
Contents |
[edit] A Historical Perspective?
IMHO, the study of meaning actually comes from two distinct sources: logico-philosophical and historico-linguistic.
The logico-philosophical tradition started as a part in symbolic logic and analytic philosophy, and then spread through Montague's work to linguistics, and at the same time spread from formal logic systems to computer science and beyond.
The historico-linguistic tradition started purely in linguistics: from historical lexical changes, Saussure's semiotic precursor, and American structural lexical analysis to generative semantics, and current studies in the lexical semantics field. The new development of semantics in the cognitive science is probably more of a matter of an extension of the lexical semantics tradition.
Thus, I think it is better to organize this article in a way to reflect the historical development or ramifications of the theory of semantics.
[edit] Not enough semantics
The kind of semantics as currently practiced in the linguistics departments in major American and European universities is called Formal Semantics a la Montague, which is different from the Formal Semantics as practiced in computer science. This Montagovian linguistic formal semantics field is probably one of the most important fields which are named "semantics". This specific field deserves better mention in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddhy (talk • contribs) 18:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Dynamic semantics is a particular version of formal semantics (Heim, Kamp, Groenendijk and Stokhof, etc.O. The term "dynamic turn" is unfortunate without mentioning this school of thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chibben (talk • contribs) 01:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sémantique
It seems that the word "Sémantique", French for Semantics, was invented by Michel Bréal in 1987. This would be a good addition to this article.
- Why? Lucidish 16:28, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Theoretical Linguistics table is misleading
while i think Semantics rightfully appears as a subcategory of Theoretical Linguistics, that is not the only subcategory i feel it should be placed in. Semantics is itself wholly a subcategory of Semiotics, & Semiotics intersects Theoretical Linguistics, but also extends each of its subcategories to other sign systems - i.e., Semantics does NOT belong to JUST Theoretical Linguistics, if Theoretical Linguistics does not concern all sign systems (which Semantics does). unfortunately, the Theoretical Linguistics table on the right of the Semantics webpage implies that Semantics belongs ONLY to Theoretical Linguistics. so, i feel that should stay there, but to not mislead, perhaps a category table of Logic & also Computer Science / Math (or at least a link Formal Semantics), & perhaps a Philosophy of Language table each showing Semantics' place in them should be added, too.
disagreements welcome.
Factotum 10:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Episodic & Semantic Memory
JA: I reverted an edit to the definitions of episodic and semantic memory that advanced a specific hypothesis about their mechanisms. The purpose of the definitions is to tell what episodic and semantic memory are, not to advance a specific hypothesis about how they might work. This can be done at a later point in the section, better yet, in the main article for those topics under cognitive science. Jon Awbrey 03:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re -- Revert
Hi Jon,
The reason I edited the section on semantic memory was because I think what is there now is a little off. Although I think you have it right that researchers in the field take semantic memory to be the hypothesized store for 'meaning' I don't think describing it as a 'gist' does it justice.
Also, the episodic store is not characterized by being 'ephemeral' in any way. Episodic memory can store information for long durations but is characterized as having a qualitatively different structure to that of the semantic. By ephemeral I think you might have meant some sort of sensory memory.
I won't change anything until you comment.
Cheers.
Azymuthca 02:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
JA: I'm just saying that this is an article on Semantics, and probably only calls for a tangential mention of semantic and episodic memory, as there will be places to develop those topics on their own, or under the aegis of some cog sci article. I worried about ephemeral, but used it as a less arcane substitute for the tech term in philosophy, which I think would have to be haecceity. It's not that the memory is transient, but that the content remembered is personalized and unique to each passing moment. Best I remember, though, but that's a memory of another haziness. Jon Awbrey 03:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Azy: Good Points, no need to expand this section. However, I still think 'gist' and 'ephemeral' need to be altered in some way. If I were to successfully explain Godel's first incompleteness theorum this would be due to information encoded in semantic memory, and would definately not be charachterized as 'gist.' How about subsituting 'gist' for 'generalized content.' As for ephemeral, I think your other two descriptions capture the concept well. Ephemeral leads to some ambiguity and I don't think it adds to the introductory nature of the passage. What do you think?
205.250.248.100 23:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] for the layman
Can anyone give a simple example of semantics? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.197.217.131 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
- this article seems to define linguistic terms with other linguistic terms. it's hard to understand. examples would be great! Bantosh 06:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I heard a riddle the other day which has been described by various people as semantics, but im unsure of exactly why, i hope someone can shed some light on this. if this is entirely irrelevant please feel free to delete it. this is the riddle:
-
-
- Three men share a hotel room that comes to £30 in total. They each pay the receptionist £10 each. The receptionist then realises that there is actually an offer on that room, and that it is £25 for the night. So the 3 men discuss what to do with the £5 refund as they can't split it between the three of them. They decide to keep £1 each and pay the other £2 to the receptionist. Now, this means that each man has paid £9 for the room (they paid £10 and received £1 back). 3 x £9 = £27. the receptionist has the £2... £27 + £2 = £29. where is the other pound gone?
-
-
- Its a little weird, but as i say, i think this may be a relevant example of semantics but im not sure. Please shed some light on this.
Dark_wounds
[edit] Help wanted with semantics in Wikipedia please
I have done a lot of editing on Wikipedia, which I love, but keep reaching a dead end with other editors over what I think is best classed as a matter of semantics. The latest is on Evolution where I find an example, yet again, of what I might call 'semantic hi-jacking' or 'misappropriation of a higher category as one that it includes'.
On Evolution, the word is being defined as the 'theory of evolution as currently accepted by most people'. I argue that this is to equate the phenomenon itself with one theory regarding the phenomenon. To do this is to 'end science' since science proceeds by theory, and any theory is only a provisional explanation of a phenomenon until superceded by a better theory.
Is this semantics? Would any editors here like to take a look at the page and offer their analysis of my argument on the talk page please? --Memestream 20:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think your argument belongs on this page, but you indirectly raise a point that needs to be addressed here, namely, that in modern English, the word semantics has different meanings:
- The study of meaning (this is what is presently discussed on this page)
- Issues of meaning (which is what your remark is about)
- Meaning or assignment of meaning (e.g. in computer science the word is used in this sense all the time)
- So the page needs to be expanded. Rp 18:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:John loves a bagel
Quote: "For example, in the sentence, "John loves a bagel", the word bagel may refer to the object itself, which is its literal meaning or denotation, but it may also refer to many other figurative associations, such as how it meets John's hunger, etc., which may be its connotation"
How is John loving a bagel interpretable in any way other than John likes to eat bagels (and for that matter how exactly does a bagel meet hunger)? An example such as this needs to be more explicit in it's distinction between alternate interpretations. I'd happily try to provide one but if I'm here to look up the meaning of the word I'm guessing I'm unqualified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.7.39 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] POV?
The article says "Traditionally, the formal semantic view restricts semantics to its literal meaning, and relegates all figurative associations to pragmatics, but this distinction is increasingly difficult to defend" This seems to me not a neutral point of view. Does anyone have any idea how to change this in something more neutral? Perhaps "...but less and less people describe to this distinction?" But I don't even know if that is true.
--Merijn2 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
