Let's Play Ragnarok Forum

User info

Welcome, Guest! Please login or register.

You are here » Let's Play Ragnarok Forum » Assignments Submission » Semantics Assignments

Semantics Assignments

Posts 1 to 12 of 12


Assalamualaikum Wr. Wb My beloved students!

This thread is purposed as a location you should submit your work in Semantics class. Make sure following the format of submitting an assignment. If you don't know how to write correctly, follow this link.

We will inform your score immediately, if there will be lateness we expect your understanding due to real world jobs. Good luck to all of you.  :cool:



Name   : Fery Effendi
NIM      : 140121003
Semantic problem while teaching process based on my experience
While the process of teaching English sometimes we find several problems inside. The problems may come from the students and the teacher. In this studied the author will write an experience of the semantic problem that had been done by the teacher inside the class. Based on study of linguistic, we may say that semantic the study of meaning, how does the meaning can be understood by the listener or reader.  In the study of semantic, during process of delivering the meaning we must pass the three steps of delivering meaning, they are mind, word, and world. The teacher would like to deliver his idea from their mind at the time. He tried to transform the idea from his mind into word, by using English to deliver his idea. Because at the time we learnt English language. It means the teacher has passed to steps of delivering meaning. But in fact, because of the condition from the students were low in English. Most of the students did not understand the idea that was delivered by the teacher trough English. It means the teacher did not require the last step of delivering idea. Based on my analysing, it was not because the language that he used to deliver the idea. But the way of delivering the idea also be one of the factor in this problem. The teacher may use gesture to support the language or provide several media to achieve the require of the last step. It is world.



This following case is needed tobe known
"Do you still remember when you were confuse on the vocabulary meaning??? what probably English teacher do on you??"
Absolutely right, she or he prefers to give you synonym or rather than give you the meaning on your mother tongue,
this kind of teaching way based on the theory is actually included to the semantics study,
regarding with the synonym given is called “DEFINITION of SYNONYM”  which is in the Modes of Definition that take form definition of cognitive nominal definition.
Amazing right??
So, there are numerous knowledge that actually we don’t know. Finally, keep studying is the best way for us



Semantic Problem

Semantic is linguistic study deals with the meaning. It probably something useful and powerful study inside of our life. From the study focus, we would like to know the essence of the words that we use for communication in daily life. Inside of the study, it must have the problem that could solve by this focus. One of the problem is that when we found the difficulty words to comprehend because we have not known the word before. The specific problem inside of the class that we found in the class is deals with the National Examination preparation. Inside of the test there are some questions that deals with synonym and antonym. It is something difficult that faced by the students inside of the class. This cases deal with Semantic study. It should be solved by understanding the words on the choice that has already known previously. At least when we know one word that contrasted or as the same meaning with the word on the question. That is one step to the correct answer of the question deal with synonym and antonym. It deals with the definition of the synonymy theory. The other problem based on the synonymy is that the learner could not use the words in appropriate context usage. Example the students can’t distinguish the appropriate word for “untuk”. Inside of their mind they have understanding the words “to” and “for”. Or the students can’t distinguish the appropriate word for “melihat”, they will get the difficulty to choose “look”, ”see”, or “watch”.
The other problem inside of the class is that, when the student get the difficulty to get the gist of the sentence or clause. It deals with the kind of the word or commonly we know it as part of speech. The problem that faced by the students deals with this case is the students get difficulty to understand when the students faced the transformation of the word classes. Because it is could change the meaning of the word when it change the word classes. Then, it feels that should be solved by using semantic study. At least to interpret the meaning of the sentence.



Achsanul Huda | 140121001
Article Summary

Summary Semantic 2.3

Subchapter 2.3 Different ways of defining meanings
2.3.1 Real and nominal definition
Based on Aristotelian inside of Nick Reamer book stated that definition is to be found in the Posterior Analytics, in this period it deals with the explanation of the structure of scientific knowledge. It has two different interpretations. Those are “what the object is” and “what its name means”. A sort of summation of the essence or inherent nature of a thing called as real definition. For instance thunder, it is not a description of the meaning of the word thunder, but expresses thunder’s essential nature. The other example is that Sholat. In English it called as pray. But it is not the real pray that the meaning is “Doa”, but it is expresses the essential of the Sholat itself, because Sholat is not only pray but it also has several activity that should be done in order.
On the other hand, a description the meaning of the word which denotes this thing called as nominal definition. Bloomfield add that we can define the meaning of a speech-form accurately when the meaning with some matter that it should have scientific knowledge. But Bloomfield’s also something that is still ambiguous, controversial and debatable especially when it is dealing with abstract nouns and lack of scientific definition. For the example deals with feeling, for instance like, angry, hate, love and etc.
The first reason to reject Bloomfield theory is that words like unicorn, time machine and light sabre lack any denotation in the real world but it has a meaning. The second reason to reject Bloomfield theory is most of the vocabulary of a language has only a small amount of overlap with terms of the sort which interest empirical science: most of the vocabulary consists of words for a huge variety of objects, processes, relations and states which have no simple analogue in the scientific picture of reality (think of reportage, postpone, ready). Another reason to reject Bloomfield is in the case of terms like salt, if based on scientific definition we should say that it is NaCl, but in fact we do not want to say that the scientific definition. Because people use and understand the word salt even without specialized scientific knowledge. Linguistic semantics aims to define the meaning(s) of a word, not the underlying essence of the object it refers to. It is thus concerned with nominal, not real definition.
Two different functions which a nominal definition may fulfil: fixing the meaning of a word so that there can be no ambiguity about its denotation, and bringing about an understanding of the meaning of a word in someone who does not already understand it, typically in order to enable the word to be correctly used. Let us call the first type of definition extensional definition, and the second type cognitive definition.

2.3.2 Definition by ostension
Ostension: A means of definition which consists simply of pointing to the referent of the word whose meaning is to be defined. Ostensive definition: the meaning of a word has been defined by indicating the object to which it refers. In other words, it specifies the meaning of an expression by pointing to examples of things to which the expression applies (e.g., green is the color of grass, limes, lily pads, and emeralds).  But in fact this definitional method would seem to give rise too many ambiguities to be feasible. The only way to overcome the problems of ostensive definition would seem to be to use language itself as the medium in which definitions can be phrased: only this way, apparently, can we get the level of definitional precision we need.
2.3.3 Definition by synonymy
Synonymy: The situation where two expressions or words have the same meaning. The problem with this strategy is that it is usually possible to challenge the identity between the definiens (the metalanguage word proposed as the definition; Latin ‘defining’) and the definiendum (the object language word for which a definition is required; Latin ‘needing to be defined’). (E.g. begin, start, commence, initiate and others.) The problem that could appear with this theory is that the learner could not choose the appropriate words in the context. It is happened because based on the literary meaning it has same but the usage are different. So it needs the sense of the language to choose the appropriate words as the correct usage. The way to overcome the problems of synonymy definition would seem to be used the context of the situation.
2.3.4 Definition by context or typical exemplar
Defining a word by describing the context in which its referent typically context: occurs (e.g. defining glass with ‘what you usually drink water out of’) the definition identifies the event of scratching by placing it in relation to another event, being itchy, whose meaning is assumed to be already known, and which is taken as a typical context for the definiendum.
Definition by typical exemplar: Defining a word by specifying a typical example (e.g. specifying ‘robin’ for bird) the definition is a list of typical examples or instances of the definiendum.
This theory require the understanding the words that would be used in the context. It also need a cleanliness or specify the words such as specifying ‘robin’ for bird
2.3.5 Definition by genus and differentia
They may often be workable as cognitive definitional strategies, but they are unlikely to be successful as extensional definitions. Definition by genus and differentia (GD definition) means that defining a word by specifying the broader class (the genus) to which the definiendum belongs, and then showing the distinguishing feature of the definiendum (the differentia) which distinguishes it from the other members of this broader class. There are many problem cases, however, where GD definition may be either ineffective or, simply, impossible. GD definition presupposes a system of categories or general according to which definienda can be classed: defining man as ‘rational animal’ presupposes that the addressee already knows the meanings of those two terms. But there is not a large number of genera and differentiae to work with: for many words, the relevant genus will not be familiar to the definition’s addressee, and hence GD definition won’t be an effective strategy for a cognitive definition.



Fery Effendi | 14012003
Semantic summary

the scope of meaninfingf

Chapter 3
The scope of Meaning I: external context
Resumed by Fery Effendi | 140121003 | Semantic course| English department | STKIP Al Hikmah
3.1. Meaning and context
words only exist within particular contexts, and we will not be able to achieve an adequate description of meaning if we don’t take these contexts into account. Therefore between meaning and context they have close relation in order to interpret the meaning. We could find external and interpersonal in term while we are discussing about meaning and context. External or real-world context to which linguistic expressions refer. interpersonal context of linguistic action in which any utterance is placed. For instance there is someone interested in learning to play golf, who receives the advice All golfers need to find some good clubs. Let’s try to analyse this sentence;
1. Disambiguate the noun club, ‘what club?’
2. Assign referents all golfers, good clubs: by golfers is a good club?
3. quantity referred, by some how many clubs.
4. illocutionary force ’expression is intended as part of the context, advice.’
5. extract the implication, ‘try to find some.’
Semantics and pragmatics are closely related.  The ways they are used in different contexts. pragmatics and semantics exist in a close symbiosis. So we must be able to different between meaning and context between semantic and pragmatic.
3.2. External context: sense and reference
reference is one of the fundamental concepts of the study of meaning.  An expression’s referent (the object to which it refers) and its sense (its general meaning, abstracted from its use to refer). In studying semantic of external context we need sense of understanding the word refers to.
3.2.1 The freegan distinction
Frege introduced the distinction between sense and reference in order to explain a puzzle about statements of identity like those in the (a) and (b) pair below:
a. The morning star is the morning star. (uninformative – they don’t give us any information)
b. The morning star is the evening star.  (clearly do tell us something)
It is sense which gives an expression its cognitive value or significance. mode of presentation, the way in which the referent is presented to our understanding. While doing communication we must have good mode of presentation to avoid any unclear information.
Frege and Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) thought that the sense of a proper name is some information which uniquely distinguishes the referent. Sense and reference are not on an equal footing in Frege’s theory of meaning. For him, sense determines reference.  It is not just individual expressions which have sense and reference.
Frege said that the reference of a sentence is the sentence’s status as true or false: its truth-value. A true sentence refers to Truth, and a false sentence refers to Falsity in the same way as proper names like Tom refer to particular individuals.

knowing the sense of the sentence Your father wants to recite a poem involves knowing what the conditions are that would make this sentence true: Your father would like to recite a poem you would be able to determine whether this was true by finding your father and seeing whether he wanted to recite a poem or not.
3.2.2 The sense/reference distinction
Sense and reference needs considerable development. exploration of the place of reference in language. For example, 'Muhammad SAW' can be understood as "The pupil of Abdulllah and teacher of shahabat," or by some other uniquely applying description. This is known as the descriptivist theory of names. Reference, speakers and hearers
Sense seems clearly to be a property of linguistic expressions: it is words and sentences which have senses. Unlike sense, reference is under the speaker’s control. It is not words which refer, but it is what speaker want refers to. the reference of a term in a particular context depends on the speaker. As good as speaker able to make clear referent as easy as hearer is able to understand. We also need to distinguish between successful and correct acts of reference. If an act of reference is successful, it succeeds in identifying the referent to the hearer. If it is correct, it refers to the referent in a way which conforms to an assumed standard. The limits of sense and reference
While we are trying to consider the sentence “Marion is a professional harpist”. a professional harpist has a predicative function. It means it has function as predicate. While some expressions clearly refer and others clearly don’t, there is a range of intermediate cases in which an expression may or may not be referring.
a. If you see the man with the green hat, tell him. (Referential: I have such a man in mind, and if you see him)
b. If you see a man with a green hat, tell him. (Non-referential: I don’t have any particular man in mind, so if you see one)
3.2.3 Deixis
Deixis is defined as those which make reference to some aspect of the context of utterance as an essential part of their meaning. English words here and there.  For example, “I put it there” cannot be described except by saying that it refers to some entity in the speaker’s context of utterance – probably a person, but also perhaps an apple, electronic, or other things. The word there could be on the table, near house, inside the class or other places.



Miftakhul Ulum | 140121004
Semantics Summary Divide | 1.6 - 1.7

Breaking the Circle of Meaning

1.6 Breaking the circle
To provide satisfactory explanation of the notion of meaning is currently unanimously hard to find. Researchers in the field of semantics, in many ways, found that there must be limitations in which they could not afford to discuss. However, they believe that the current state of difficulty is approachable in the same way other scientific works revealed that Mendel initial work ended up with modern notion of DNA. In that belief, they try to break the notion of meaning through four perspective definitions. To shed more light of this notion, empirical investigations can be started by provisionally characterize the definitional circles through ordinary language and followed by questions derived through each perspective/circle.

Meanings as referents/denotations
In this definitional circle, the role of referent or denotation should be treated as the main component of the meaning of a linguistic expression. The theory suggests that metalanguage explanations of meaning should be seen as names of the referents of the object language term. In other word, for instance, ‘the students should be in the boarding at the moment’. As it is understood through its referent, the word ‘boarding’ can be varied in meaning to everyone. But, in particular, students of STKIP Al Hikmah could understand that boarding means ma’had (boarding school). In other sense, it can be understood as boarding pass if it occurs at airport, or somewhat else. It succeeds because the referents/denotations identify the non-linguistic world. In other hand, however, an objection can come that way once it has nothing to do with the world projected representation.
The identification in this way may be successful but it causes to a very fragmented picture of the nature of language. The example of this can be seen in the above example of different referent to picture word ‘boarding’. Also, it may come to less clear picture when it comes to lexical categories as the referents. Such as grammatical words and other non-discrete referential words might be greater problems. Another problem is that a single referent may have a variety of different expressions such as the word ‘market’ at which people can take it as ‘place to sell’ or just ‘place to buy’. They are identical in denotations way, though it is concrete referents, it may be completely different.

Meanings as concepts/mental representations
Under this theory, the names of the concepts would be associated with the object language term. Nick Riemer in his book, in purposes, undertakes concepts as a way of talking about the basic constituents of thoughts. More specifically, it would take primitive concept level which cannot be broken to smaller constituent parts, neither not to distinguish the primitive to non-primitive one. It lies on mental live which we usually use to recognize objects in the world themselves. For instance, when we attribute characterizing word to figure someone out, tolerance to Ota. Meaning that, we attribute Ota with certain properties which define together the concepts of it, like patience, generosity, respect, and so on.
The interesting facts of this view are that it firstly answers to the intuition that language is intimately connected with the rest of our mental live (p.29). Therefore, the most of our ideas can be enveloped in most precise form the more we can share our mental concepts to the words use with others. To understand this, for example, the words ‘wooden chair’ can be a way of externalizing our thought of how ‘chair’ is made of ‘wood’. The second, it is often taken to explain compositionality and relations between meaning. Owing the example ‘wooden chair’, it can be seen as built up on two elements, wooden (made of wood) and chair. As each is individually changed then it might express definitely different concept to the meaning as whole. For instance, we change it to ‘steel chair’ or ‘ceramic chair’. Of course, it changes the meaning moreover to its associating concept under the concept of ‘wood’ or ‘steel’, likewise ‘wood’ may draw ‘warm’; ‘traditional end’; and so forth while ‘steel’ may have ‘cold’; ‘modern end’; and so on.
Since concept favored by linguists has the form of symbolic mental representation, the manipulation of mental symbols during communication is unavoidable. It then leads us to understand that when contents of mental events are expressed or recorded in mind, the translation of it in words of natural language follows readily (p.30).
As the previous challenge to the perspective, this definitional circle must also be perceived cautiously. First, some words may seem more naturally compatible than others with interpretation of their meanings as concepts. For instance, the conceptual words like monarchy, scenery, or hate can be readily accepted but not, at least less clear, for words like he, you, or ouch! Second, like father like son, concept is as much the same as meaning itself that cannot be seen or otherwise identified unambiguously. A concept can be open to a variety of interpretations thus it creates bias whether this is justifiable scientifically. Third, though an expression’s meaning can be partly identified with the concepts, there must be more to it than that. In understanding this, for example, if we say ‘Miftakhul Ulum is an outstanding student and an exceptional writer’. To make the much interpretation lessen, when it comes to misunderstanding view to ‘Miftakhul Ulum’ concept of real-person, it may not be true even though I mistakenly believe that ‘Miftakhul Ulum’ is on the contrary just as ‘usual student’. 

Meanings as brain states
When it comes to meaning, brain states must come as most plausible word after all. Understanding or intending a certain meaning, how the neurons in the brain work at particular configuration is best understood by brain states. However, due to our rudimentary state of understanding of how brain works, it is unidentifiable that brain a physical matter could be opposite of, or synonymous with the meanings of words. For that argument, we cannot identify the properties of brain state as well as the meaning itself. Do they share similar properties that can be justified for this circle purpose? To sum it up, any attempt to identify something intentional like language with something non-intentional like brain state will never be successful.
Since it is almost impossible to explain meaning tool in our brain, invoking concept of levels of explanation or levels of description is needed. This will help us better understand in ordinary language of what is going on with the intentional and non-intentional things we discuss. How meanings is understood by this circle is illustrated in the example of playing chess in computer. As if we put computer as a non-intentional thing likewise brain work in such a way, we can better explain the ‘How’ in certain level of explanation. In the lower level of explanation, understand what the different steps of running program in computer algorithmically would be the way to understand the intentional move even before the decision taken in advance. In the level of implementation, it is to understand the specific ways in which an algorithm implemented in multiple ways in an actual physical machine. This will be obviously different from an old magnetic tape to modern type ones, a spinning hard disk for instance. As a result, it is inevitable that meaning is part of explanation of utterances. Understanding this will be important for understanding of language, but not at the expense of meaning.
Meanings and use
To simply introduce this, I quote what Skinner (1957: 5) explained ‘what happens when a man speaks or respond to a speech is clearly a human behavior’. In the words of Bloomfield (1993: 139), the only meaning a linguistic form has is ‘the situation in which the speaker utters it and the response which it calls forth in the hearer’. For example, the word ‘sorry’ or ‘thank’ in English, it can be understood that although we do not do external analysis of the situation as the hearer would treat it as apology or gratitude. Thus, he/she might treat and response it accordingly. Moreover, if a full theory to explain how language is used is achieved, then the goal of semantics will be fulfilled.
The objection against the use theory is mind-boggling variety of the situations in which linguistics forms may be used. If the meaning of a linguistic form is the situation of the speaker’s utterance and the hearer’s response, there will be very few words to point a certain meaning like the given word ‘sorry’. This theory ignores the compositionality of language due to the constant changing of situation in which meaning is built up out of combination to suit the communication need.

1.7 Meaning and explanation
Meaning is described as a shorthand way of talking about a whole variety of separate phenomena in which are all individually important in our talk about language, especially on the intentional level of explanation, but which do not necessarily correspond to any single entity that will be revealed by careful empirical study. In any case, meaning in English might have no precise role in a full understanding in other languages. So, meaning is many different things, none of which should be ruled out as irrelevant to the eventual explanation of language.
The causal account of language behavior suggests a possible role for the notion of meaning in semantics. To explain word use, we use the words we used because due to the meanings they have. To go beyond that, a word’s meaning may include many different explanatory properties and necessitate considerations of referents and concept and situations of use. As result, to assert a meaning by single category is counter-productive since many factors should be working all together to make it understandable. However, a certain condition will be much more likely to be requiring one circle to get better understanding of meaning. For instance, if we say ‘ma’had is holy jail’, the meanings as concept can better explain this instead of as referents/denotations. The use theory might be able to give closer look to what it seems to be there in the words ‘holy jail’ but giving this to the concept is best over all.



Muhammad Abdhi Assolah | 140121007

semantics - the study of meaning -

Muhammad Abdhi Assolah

1.0 What is Semantics
When we study about linguistics, at least there are five fundamental branches which could not be leaved. Those are morphology, phonology, pragmatic, sociolinguistics, and semantics. Those study is dealing with the study of the language. However, in this chapter we will only focus on semantics which will be focused on some important concepts for study of semantics. Semantics is one of the richest and most fascinating parts of linguistics. These following questions are discovered in the study of semantics:
- What are meanings – definitions? Ideas in our head? Set of objects in the world?
- Can all meaning be precisely defined?
- What is the difference between literal and non-literal meaning?
- Do all languages express the same meaning?
- How do meanings changes?
- Etc.
(Nick Riemer: 2010)
Consequently, what semantics is? Semantics is the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. Simply semantics is the study of meaning of words, phrases and sentences. This approached is concerned with objective or general meaning and trying to account for subjective or local meaning.
Moreover, one of the discussion in semantics which cannot be leaved is about semantics block. It refers to a discrete chunk of information that conveys a specific type of information or serves a specific meaningful purpose within the overall structure of a topic. Look at the following examples;
1. I don’t eat pig
2. I like cow
Both examples are referring to the meat, first example is referring to the pig meat, even the speaker did not clear speak, however we could know that what the speaker means is pig meat. Then, “pig meat” is blocked by pork. So, pork contains about the information which is suitable, by that pork is allowed to block the pig meat and replace the position of pig meat. It is just the same case like the second example, the speaker is actually refers to cow meat and it can be blocked by beef. It is because beef required some information or aspect which is suitable for replaced the cow meat. So, those example can be stated such the following examples;
1. I don’t eat pork
2. I like beef.

Furthermore, semantics study also required “meaning” as one of the discussion. When we refer to the word and sense of “meaning”, it very vague tem. How could we define “meaning”, what meaning is? How do the meaning of words interact with syntactic rules and principles?. In ordinary English, word ‘meaning’ is (1) used to refer to such different things as the idea or intention lying behind a piece of language, (2) the thing referred to by a piece of language, (3) and the translations of words between languages. Look at the following examples;
1. ‘I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at by saying “meat is murder”. Do you mean that everyone should be a vegetarian?’
2. ‘I meant the second street on the left, not the first one.’
3. ‘Seiketsu means “clean” in Japanese.’

1.1 Meaning, Communication and Significance
We practically always speak or write something in order to express a meaning of one kind or another. It is true that without capacity to express meaning, then, language is losing one of its essential aspects. We also agree that meaning might we consider as the language itself. So, infants’ bubbling and bird song is not considered as language, since these did not, and cannot express meaning (except for their species only). If someone suddenly says

“Engels was two and a half years younger than Marx”, or
“Butterfly(s) through the window”

Both examples are conveying the meaning, then we may conclude based on the information contained whether our conclusion is true or not just like the meaning of that information and speaker.
In addition the name of semantics just arouse in the late 19 C by French linguist Michel Breal. Semantics reflect on the Greek thinkers which use the term as semantikos. It has meanging relating to sing (adj) and based on the noun semeion which is mean ‘sign’. This term originally is used in medical term for symptoms that were the sign of underlying dieses. Moreover, by the time, this derivation highlights the close relation between the study of linguistic signs. Then study of sign in general is known as semiotics or semiology.
The meanings we can express through language are infinitely more numerous, detailed and precise than those expressible through other semiotic media. Yet the type of meaning found in language can be seen as a subset of two broader categories of meaningfulness: the significance of human behavior in general, and the meaningfulness of communication specifically, then the meaningfulness of language can be seen as a subset of the meaningfulness of human behavior.

1.2 Talking about meaning in English and other languages
Semantics is study of meaning, but what is meaning? This will be discussed in 1.6. This chapter only give pretheoretical  on semantics analysis. Since meanings cannot be seen, there is the initial question of how to pin down exactly what we are and are not supposed to be investigating
1. Meaning in English
In English
In English, the verb ‘mean’ is used to describe reference, linguistic meaning, intention, and general significance. It is given the frequency with which, in English, we use this verb to talk about the relations between language, mind (intention) and the world. Look the following examples;
a. When I said ‘Dublin has lots of attractions’ I meant Dublin, Ireland, not
b. Dublin, Virginia.
c. In Sydney, ‘the bridge’ means the Harbour Bridge.
d. ‘Stout’ means ‘short and fat’.
e. By turning off the music I didn’t mean that you should go.
f. Trees mean water
Sentence (5) could digest as two possibility place related to world Dublin. However only one of them that intended to be explained by the speaker. That example are represented language, mind and world. Language is represented by Dublin has lots of attractions and ‘Dublin’ Ireland is as mind which has speaker intention to be discovered and world represented by Dublin, and world represented by two places called ‘Dublin’.
2. Meaning in Warlpiri
It is a bit different with English which has 3 principles such language, mind, and world. Warlpiri, a Pama-Nyungan language spoken in central Australia. In a sense, Warlpiri has no equivalent for the verb mean, and the links between reference, linguistic equivalence, intention, and general significance are quite differently constituted. Look the following examples;
- Nyiya karnta-ju?
what karnta-TOPIC/ ‘What is a karnta?’/‘What does “karnta” mean?
This could be translated as either ‘what does karnta mean?’ or as ‘what is a karnta?’. And when the meaning of a word is explained or defined, once again no separate verb meaning ‘mean’ is involved. The result of this is that Warlpiri makes less of a distinction than English between what a word means, and what its referent is actually. To say what a word means is simply to describe the object or situation it refers to. Language–world relations are described in the same way as world–world ones.
3. Meaning in Chinese
    In Mandarin Chinese, there is no single word with the same range of meanings as English mean or meaning. The verb zhi, whose core meaning is ‘point’, can express all of the relations between mind, language and world discussed in the previous sections, except the world–world relation. Thus, we find zhi used for the mind–language–world relation, as in the following example;
Dang wo shuo ‘Coles’, wo shi zhi Central de
when I say ‘Coles’ I     BE point Central    POSS
‘Coles’, bu shi TownHall de ‘Coles’.
‘Coles’ not BE TownHall POSS ‘Coles’
‘When I say “Coles”, I mean the “Coles” in Central but not the
“Coles” in Town Hall.’
We have to know that in mandarin mean/meaning have a similar range of sense to their English equivalents, except that mandarin has no equivalent to money means power or clouds mean rain. However, the verb meaning ‘point’ is basically express the verbal notion brings in a connection between meaning and gesture which is not familiar from English.

Last edited by Abdhiassolah1 (2017-06-12 07:13:17)



Gricean maxim

4.4. Gricean maxims and the cooperative principle
Grice claimed that implicatures like in the following examples claimed as the result of the infringement of certain principles or ‘maxims’ that conversation should be rational exchange and governed by the Cooperative Principle:
a. A: Have you read Sebald?
B: I haven’t read the back of the cereal packet.
b. A: Do you know how to get to rue du Pasteur Wagner?
B: I’ve got map in my back.
c. A: Do you like anchovies?
B: Does a hippo like mud?
The Cooperative Principle is essentially the principle that the participants in conversation work together in order to manage their speech exchange.
By the Cooperative Principle, Grice distinguished four general maxims, itemized below, which he claimed that speakers mainly observe, and expect others observe, in conversation:
a. The Maxim of quality
Try to make your contribution one that is true, specifically:
(i) Do not say what you believe to be false.
(ii) Do not say for which you lack adequate evidence.
b. The maxim of quantity
(i) Make your contribution as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.
(ii) Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.
c. The maxim of relevance
Make your contribution relevant.
d. The maxim of manner
Avoid obscurity
Avoid ambiguity
Be brief
Be orderly
(Grice 1989: 26-27)
He also added that all maxims don’t have equal important, as such maxim of manner. Some people will not really much pay attention to the polite manner. Furthermore, people frequently disobey the role of maxim. They prefer to talk exchange to obtain the primary purpose of conversation (regardless the governed maxim). Grice acknowledge, however, that maxims will need to be modified in order to take account of these other purposes.
4.4.1. Infringing the maxims
Grice consider four ways in which a speaker may fail to observe maxim.
a. A maxim may be violated, as for example when one deliberately sets out to mislead (in violation of first maxim of Quality), to confuse or to bore (violation of various Manner maxims).
b. One may simply opt out of the Cooperative Principle, as such by saying “I can’t say more, my lips are sealed”, in order to avoid divulging a secret.
c. One may be faced by clash, for example if it was impossible to informativity maxim without infringing the evidentiary one. (see the following conversation)
A: Where does C live?
B: Somewhere in the south Africa.
d. Maxim-flouting is where the speaker exploits an obvious infringement of one of the maxims in order to generate an implicature. Flouting is the origin of the implicated meaning conveyed in the following conversation:
a) A: Have you read Sebald?
B: I haven’t read the back of the cereal packet.
b) A: Do you know how to get to rue du Pasteur Wagner?
B: I’ve got map in my back.
c) A: Do you like anchovies?
B: Does a hippo like mud?
In all those sentences, the maxim of Relevance is obviously flouted to varying degree.
On the assumption that speaker is able to fulfill the maxim and to do so without violating another maxim, is not opting out and is not trying to mislead, the hearer is faced with a minor problem: how can his saying what he did say be reconciled with the Cooperative Principle.
(Grice 1989: 30)
4.4.2. Questions about implicatures
Based on Grice, hearer will obtain the meaning of utterance of speaker through rational process of inference in general assumption. For scholar sympathetic to the Gricen approach, this is theoretically significant discovery about the nature of meaning in general. Three observations are relevant.
1. The whole conversations can often proceed without any implicatures of the sort Grice discusses.
2. Not all language occurs in the context of cooperative talk exchange. As such we often make assertions for which we lack evidence, which we know not to be true, and which, in fact, we do not even expect to be understood.
3. The analysis always depends on it being possible to say that an implicature is clearly being conveyed and more less what this implicature is. But how realistic is this? Sometimes it is entirely unclear whether the speaker is implying anything beyond what they are saying. On how it is not the case if the hearer will proceed infringement.

4.5. Are the maxims universal?
This is important to know whether maxim of Grice theory is accepted in conversation except English. Even though, it has importance as other language or not. Keenan questioned in that theory by saying that we can readily imagine situations even in our own society which do not observe the first maxim of Quality. As the hearers are not make contributions as informative as is required for current purposes of the exchange. In the fact that there are many situations where it would be indiscreet, impolite or unethical to be informative. As such, the situations of professional confidence like that involving teacher who teach the anxiety students whether they are low capability. Sometimes the teacher need to be discreet to be more appropriate to appreciate them. This will disobey the govern of the theory. By mean, the theory is not accepted in some people. In the other hand, as Javanese culture also will reject the cooperative principle. The one who are offered something, most of time will say “no thank” but the intended meaning they are saying “thank you so much (they are accepted)”. It proves that the maxims cannot be accepted in all languages or cultures. As Keenan argue that the Gricean Maxims must not be seen as universal principles governing the entire range of human conversational behavior. 



Full name : Muhammad Farich
NIM : 14121008
Course : English Semantics
Topic : Meaning and Definition

2.1 Meaning and Dictionary

Meaning and Dictionary
The meaning comes out from someone’s brain always be close with what comes out from definition in the dictionary. Sometimes we match the definition in the dictionary with our mind concept. This just like an extreme fact that dictionary could shape the people word meaning along this era. So it means that, the word’s meaning in our mind is closely related with the concept of definition in the dictionary.
Semantics and Lexicography
Language exists in the form of a sum of impressions deposited in the brain of each member of a community, rather like a dictionary of which identical copies have been distributed to each individual. (Saussure, 1967: 38)

Dictionary-writing (lexicography) is not only about the theoretical linguistics which gives people knowledge, but also a work which suitable for common people understanding. Means that dictionary also combine the theoretical work of linguistics and the nature of language which has been distrusted to each person. In an assumption, each person has storage of words in their brain that we call as mental lexicon.

In the case of our brain have a complex description of a word; ordinary dictionary must be more detailed. While containing an information of the word meaning (or even definition), it also concern on the phonological concept and the grammatical contexts. For instance, we could see an example of E-dictionary Cambridge Advance Learner’s Dictionary 3rd Edition part of an entry for the verb cut:

Cut /kʌt/ verb (cutting, cut, cut) USE KNIFE
1. [ I  or  T ] to break the surface of something, or to divide or make something smaller, using a sharp tool, especially a knife
  Cut a slice of bread
  I've cut myself/my hand on that glass/ with that knife.     
  Cut the meat up into small pieces.
  This knife doesn't cut very well, it's not sharp enough.   
  Where did you have your hair cut?
[+ Object + adjective]   Firefighters had to cut the trapped driver loose/free   (= cut the metal, etc. to allow the driver to get out of the car) using special equipment.     
He fell off the swing and cut his head open   (= got a deep cut in his head).
He cut the cake in/into six (pieces) and gave each child a slice.

This a part of entry for the verb cut; which actually there are more meaning, use, context, and sentence construction to cover the word meaning. In fact, this is a modern dictionary which covers the lack-ness of conventional dictionary in order to give more knowledge and language nature to the people.

Word-Based and Meaning Based
[Auf] Do you know what Football Striker is?
[Ahmad] Yeah. It is a player who plays in the front.

[Auf] Do you know what Football Striker is?
[Ibrahim] Of course, it is just like Messi, Ronaldo, Ibrahimovic. They are the goal makers.
[Auf] I see. They are always in the front, right?
[Ibrahim] Yes, they are.

Someone usually gives its definition to explain a word. We consider that as semasiological approach; Such as the dictionary which provides the individual lexeme and specify it. In the other hand, someone also gives similar things to explain a word. This is considered as onomasiological approach; such as the thesaurus which provides the particular meaning and list the various expression of its meaning. Like (1), Ahmad gives the definition to explain Football striker. We even couldn’t be sure this approach is success. So in (2), Ibrahim gives some similar thing; this as the alternative of language approach. We could choose both as the situation need.



Full name : Nurullah
NIM : 140121012
Course : Semantic
Topic : Semantic Problem

The Slips of Mahasantri

It is happened in the daily activity of Mahasantri of Al Hikmah Teacher institute. It is called as slips. It is caused by their language that can’t connect with their mind. In simply, they know what their intended meaning or what they want to say, but unfortunately they have wrong production or pronunciation.
I have discussed with two Mahasantri in informal situation. They told me everything, then I also told them something, but when I stated something to them. I said, “My experience is good, isn’t it?” then, one of them suddenly said “Mine is better than you.” From that example we actually realized that his intended meaning is “Mine is better than yours,” but it probably their language is not connected with the mind that they want to produce, but although they spoke like that, we (the partner) still understand to what their intended meaning is.
When I tries to speak with the second Mahasantri, he also did the same thing with the first Mahasantri. So to solve this problem, I suggest that the one who usually did this wrong slips, directly gets the treatment at that time. The treatment could be the grammatical error of the structure.

Last edited by Nurullah237 (2017-06-15 22:30:10)



Full name : Nurullah
NIM : 140121012
Course : English Semantic
Topic : Semiotic Triangel-Initial Concept-Object Language and Metalanguage

The Summary of Semantic

The Summary of Semantic (Word)
https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/my-d … ofsemantic


You are here » Let's Play Ragnarok Forum » Assignments Submission » Semantics Assignments