The Different Theories of Semantics

powered by nusrat

1. [RUNNING HEAD: THE DIFFERENT THEORIES OF SEMANTICS]November 28, 2014


The Different Theories of Semantics

2. [RUNNING HEAD: THE DIFFERENT THEORIES OF SEMANTICS]November 28, 2014
Abstract
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. The native speaker has a ‘semantic competence’ which helps in
recognizing that certain utterances are not meaningful even if they obey the
grammatical rules of the language. A highly formalized theory of natural language
semantics in which expressions are assigned denotations (meanings) such as
individuals, truth values, or functions from one of these to another. The truth of a
sentence, and more interestingly, its logical relation to other sentences, is then
evaluated relative to a model.

The Different Theories of Semantics

3. [RUNNING HEAD: THE DIFFERENT THEORIES OF SEMANTICS]November 28, 2014
Semantics is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, like
words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotation.
Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used for understanding human
expression through language. Other forms of semantics include the semantics of
programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics. 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. We cannot accept a sentence as meaningful if it is illogical and does not
communicate anything. For example –
·Monday came before the day which followed it.
·This is a circular statement which tells us nothing.
Such statements are called tautological statements. Then there are contradictory
statements, which are false in meaning, e.g.
·My unmarried sister is married to a bachelor.
·This statement is absurd – a person cannot be both married and unmarried.

Theory of Meaning
The term “theory of meaning” has figured, in one way or another, in a great number of
philosophical disputes over the last century. Unfortunately, this term has also been
used to mean a great number of different things. Here focus on two sorts of “theory of
meaning.”
The first sort of theory—a semantic theory—is a theory which assigns semantic
contents to expressions of a language. Approaches to semantics may be divided
according to whether they assign propositions as the meanings of sentences and, if
they do, what view they take of the nature of these propositions.
The second sort of theory—a foundational theory of meaning—is a theory which
states the facts in virtue of which expressions have the semantic contents that they
have. Approaches to the foundational theory of meaning may be divided into theories
which do, and theories which do not, explain the meanings of expressions of a
language used by a group in terms of the contents of the mental states of members of
that group.

Theories of Semantics

4. [RUNNING HEAD: THE DIFFERENT THEORIES OF SEMANTICS]November 28, 2014
Linguistic competence, the ability to understand the sentences of a natural language,
has a certain unbounded character: There is an enormous variety, a seemingly
limitless supply of sentences with different meanings that natural language has on
offer for its speakers. And competent speakers possess an astounding capacity to
efficiently and speedily produce and understand these sentences, even if they have
never heard them before. An account of meaning as an object of knowledge, the
product of a competence possessed by ordinary speakers, has to, somehow, come to
terms with the limitless character of this competence. Meaning of the sentence is
depended on the truth conditions both within the sentence and in the real world.
Hence, Truth-conditional Theory of Meaning
Truth-conditional semantics
Key Claim: the meaning of a sentence is identical to the conditions under which it is
true. Know the meaning of "Ġianni ate fish for tea" = know exactly how to apply it to
the real world and decide whether it is true or false.
On this view, one task of semantic theory is to provide a system for identifying the
truth conditions of sentences. A native speaker of a language can infer the truth of
propositions in that language from the truth of other propositions. The speaker
knows the conditions in which a particular sentence is true. According to truth-
conditional semantics, to know the meaning of a sentence is to know the conditions
under which it is true. A sentence is true if all the necessary conditions of truth are
satisfied. The truth condition of a sentence is almost universally considered to be
distinct from its meaning. The meaning of a sentence is conveyed if the truth
conditions for the sentence are understood. Additionally, there are many sentences
that are understood although their truth condition is uncertain. One popular
argument for this view is that some sentences are necessarily true —that is, they are
true whatever happens to obtain. All such sentences have the same truth conditions,
but arguably do not thereby have the same meaning. Likewise, the sets {x: x is alive}
and {x: x is alive and x is not a rock} are identical—they have precisely the same
members—but presumably the sentences "Nixon is alive" and "Nixon is alive and is
not a rock" have different meanings.

Generative Theory of Meaning

5. [RUNNING HEAD: THE DIFFERENT THEORIES OF SEMANTICS]November 28, 2014
In theoretical linguistics, a generative grammar of a language attempts to give a set of
rules that will correctly predict which combinations of words will form grammatical
sentences. In most approaches to generative grammar, the rules will also predict the
morphology of a sentence. Generative grammar arguably originates in the work of
Noam Chomsky, beginning in the late 1950s. However, Chomsky has said that the first
generative grammar in the modern sense was Panini's Sanskrit grammar. Early
versions of Chomsky's theory were called transformational grammar, and this term is
still used as a general term. TG is both transformational and generative. It not only
analyses the sentences, divides them into parts and shows the functions of various
parts but also completely rearranges them and shows the inter-relatedness between
sentences. It takes up the basic or kernel sentence. A basic or kernel sentence is a
simple, assertive, declarative, and active in form. For example:
·John is playing football.
·I wrote a letter.
·You spoke the truth.

Reference
·Evans G., and McDowell, J., (eds.) 1976, Truth and Meaning: Essays in Semantics,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
·Fine, K., 2007, Semantic Relationism, New York: Blackwell Publishing.
·Foster, J., 1976, “Meaning and Truth Theory,” in Evans and McDowell (1976), 1–
32.
·The native speaker has a ‘semantic competence’ which helps in recognizing that
certain utterances are not meaningful even if they obey the grammatical rules of the
language.

6. [RUNNING HEAD: THE DIFFERENT THEORIES OF SEMANTICS]November 28, 2014
In theoretical linguistics, a generative grammar of a language attempts to give a set of
rules that will correctly predict which combinations of words will form grammatical
sentences. In most approaches to generative grammar, the rules will also predict the
morphology of a sentence. Generative grammar arguably originates in the work of
Noam Chomsky, beginning in the late 1950s. However, Chomsky has said that the first
generative grammar in the modern sense was Panini's Sanskrit grammar. Early
versions of Chomsky's theory were called transformational grammar, and this term is
still used as a general term. TG is both transformational and generative. It not only
analyses the sentences, divides them into parts and shows the functions of various
parts but also completely rearranges them and shows the inter-relatedness between
sentences. It takes up the basic or kernel sentence. A basic or kernel sentence is a
simple, assertive, declarative, and active in form. For example:
·John is playing football.
·I wrote a letter.
·You spoke the truth.

Reference
·Evans G., and McDowell, J., (eds.) 1976, Truth and Meaning: Essays in Semantics,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
·Fine, K., 2007, Semantic Relationism, New York: Blackwell Publishing.
·Foster, J., 1976, “Meaning and Truth Theory,” in Evans and McDowell (1976), 1–
32.
·The native speaker has a ‘semantic competence’ which helps in recognizing that
certain utterances are not meaningful even if they obey the grammatical rules of the
language.