Talk:Meaning (linguistics)

message: hi. would please a linguist decide on whether my uneasy feeling about having semantics and meaning (linguistics) side by side  is justified or not... Kku 14:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are different concepts.  Note that the article is still under development. Hpvpp (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: overlap

message: * I'll support the split. Just do it and see if the articles can stand one their own. Banno 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: In following with most other wikipedia articles, I think it would be wise to start this article with something like "Meaning is _____" rather than starting it in medias res, so to speak. A nice, plain, non-circuitous, and linguistic definition is what is called for to start this article.--121.208.168.181 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  introduction 

message: That editors who contribute to and watch this article check out this Article for Deletion nomination and comment.  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: Link...-->      --Faustnh (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A convenient distinction of two kinds of meaning 

message: The following is in the article: The term "pragmatics" was introduced by the Logical Positivist, Rudolf Carnap. This was an attempt to reduce subjective meaning to a secondary status and to treat what remained as objective by following Wittgenstein, who sought to objectify meaning as intent as if it were merely a matter of context.
As far as I understand, neither earlier or later Wittgenstein objectified meaning as intent. Earlier Wittgenstein has meaning as the information expressed about relationships in the world (picture theory), and later Wittgenstein has meaning as use, with intent or any other psychological act more or less explicitly excluded from the act of meaning (though not from the very broad context of forms of life). Presumably Carnap was misreading Wittgenstein, but without a citation, it's difficult to check. Either that, or the sentence needs more clarity for the challenged (like me).VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wittgenstein 

message: I believe that the pragmatics section is a big copy vio - either that or someone has copied wikipedia. Here is the document here.
I don't want to delete an entire section on pragmatics; is there a way of checking who copied whom?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 09:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pragmatics copy vio 

message: miniveer mourned the ripe renown
   that made so many a name so fragrant
He mourned Romance,now on the town 
 And  Art,A vagrant  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.40.138.226 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  can anyone translate this for me? 

message: Re:
From a Wittgensteinian point of view, you'd need to add meaning as use, rather than signifying.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Genezistan I think you've misunderstood what wikipedia is about. It's not about trying to present "the truth". It's about presenting what published recognised authorities in the field say, with none of your own added gloss. What you have just written is original research. If you want to discuss your ideas, you'll have to find another venue. Wikipedia reflects scholarship, but it should not take part in it. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid I contributed to this confusion (couldn't resist responding to the challenge): the articles' talk pages are for discussing the articles, which should not contain original research, therefore there's no point in including original research in them either. Anyone's welcome to improve the way an article informs about its subject, e.g. by means of clearer definitions, but these definitions must reflect accepted publications and not editors' original ideas. Thus, if the link you provided points to a reliable source that contains a definition to "meaning" of which you approve, it's probably ok to add it to the article, stating its source. On the other hand, mere common sense is not a sufficient criterion for inclusion of data in Wikipedia. VsevolodKrolikov wasn't attacking you personally, he was simply explaining Wikipedia principles – no need to be offended! Dan ☺ 21:11, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, I certainly didn't mean to attack you Genezistan. It's a common mistake to make for people new to Wikipedia. Think of it like this - none of the editors on here can be considered, officially, an expert on anything, regardless of our real-life qualifications or credentials. Our personal opinions on any article topic count for nothing. It's not our job to tell the truth. It's our job to report and organise what other people think/have thought the truth is. We're the librarians, not the writers. That may sound dull, but the pleasure for me is a zen-like indifference to what my own views are when trying to present a balanced view of the sources, as well as the chance to learn about topics where articles are lacking or of obviously poor quality. While you might find one or two people willing to engage you in discussion of your own ideas, I suspect most editors will back off. The thing is, there are quite a few people who come to Wikipedia to spread their own often inflammatory views on a variety of topics (climate change, religion, September 11, Communism, the correct name for the islands just off the west coast of Europe etc.). Wikipedia's way round this is appeal to reliable sources as the arbiter of content (verifiability). So anyone putting forward their own views/arguments rather than those of sources is often treated as a bit suspect, no matter how well intended they are. Anyway, no offence meant, and happy editing.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning - defined my way 

message: Well, we still need a definition, whether original or foolproof. I can see that you are both wise men, I would like to encourage you not to defend policies only, but to join and supply what is missing here.
Once I wrote somewhere in this product that consistency is lacking in many ways. In theory all the words, concepts and names should be defined and identified properly. There are tools to do that. Disambiguation is one thing, running a concordance program on all texts created afresh and checking the list of words against the index of this encyclopedia is another. Consistency should be maintained at text level, not just at entry (article heading or label) level. See what I mean?
If this encyclopedia is to be of any use in scientific terms, then the two articles below should give you proper guidance to do the job of defining meaning. Just have a go at it, please.  And then you may realize that procedural knowledge (How to... and know.how) is a lot more useful then lexical knowledge or citing a lot of rubbish, just because they have already been published.
Cheers,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic#Semantics_of_languages
Genezistan (talk) 03:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid citing a lot of rubbish is what we have to do. In this case we have to cite the various rubbish that linguistics specialists and philosophers have spouted, weighted in more or less direct relation to how many other people have swallowed it and vomited it back up in support. The best thing to do right now is make a list of the major viewpoints/perspectives we think should be included. (Running a concordance program is original research. We'd have to find someone else who's done it and published it.)But I agree the article is in bad shape. The current passage on conceptual meaning, for example, is one long essay. I have no idea according to whom most of that section is, apart from S.I. Hayakawa's 1961 book, which appears to be what it's derived from, at least to my essay-grading eye. This sentence is a gem of "it's an essay" writing": Since meaning, linguistics, and semantics are often understood with the help of words like "denotation" and "connotation" one feels obliged to have to discuss them at length. but one should be very careful about using the terms. Yes, thanks for that.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  No offense taken 

message: Apparently what Wittgenstein says about use is roughly corresponds to sense. The only trouble is that sense is associated with a form, usually homonymy. With meaning we nees something broader and wider.
Wittgenstein writes:
3.343 Definitions are the rules for translating from one language inbto another. All correct languages should be possible to translate into any other by following those rules: this is what is common in them. (my translation) But the very same person wites rubbish here:
4.025 Translating from one language into another is not done by translating individual statements by mapping them into statements in the target language, but by translating the components of such statements. (And the esulting dictionary will include not only the translations of nouns , but those of verbs, adjectives and conjuctives and will handle all of them in the same way.)
What an outdated idea! (But fom Wittgenstein...)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genezistan (talk • contribs) 04:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether you think it's outdated is neither here nor there. In any case, I am referring to later Wittgenstein, not the view articulated in the Tractatus. For (later) Wittgenstein, the literature is very clear that the meaning of a word is how it is used - it's fundamental to the arguments developed in Philosophical Investigations. Sense (and nonsense) are slightly different, typically applied to sentences and propositions - combinations of words put together.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sense 

message: The central issue in Antal’s book is the meaning of meaning , which is easy to grasp as long as you provide a definition. Last year I read a whole book on Semantics , which was supposed to define, among other, meaning, yet I have not found a passage dedicated to the definition of meaning . So I was quite prepared that Antal might let me down by not providing one in his current book, or in its predecessor The Questions of Meaning. But he is far from anything like that as I have come to know.
Antal suggests that you should differentiate between meaning and content. So in his terminology a sign (a word, or a morpheme) has a denotatum, whereas a sentence has a content (instead of a denotatum). He then makes it an issue to separate meaning and content, saying that nearly everybody confuses the two.
Antal claims that meaning is not identical with the knowledge of the denotatum, but it is that of  the denotation. Much of the misunderstanding comes from the branch of Logic calling itself Semantics and trying to replace Semantics in Linguistics  he says.
Unlike Chomsky, who believes a sentence is a dichotomous unity, Antal views a sentence to be evaluated by three factors, namely form, meaning and content, where the presence, absence or change of the last one has no effect on the correctness of a sentence .  And he adds that meaning is also of formal nature before he comes to his main message that runs like this:
“…meaning is not primarily the knowledge of the speaker’s mind, but an objective part of the objectively existing language. Although the speaker is familiar with the meaning, and meaning for him may be said to be knowledge, this knowledge does not concern some object, it is not then knowledge of the denotatum, but a 
linguistic form of knowledge.” .
In his chapter Sentence and Judgment Antal makes a distinction between sentences that cannot be addressed by everybody to anybody. They would be a class of sentences typical of a trade or another community, whose language (vocabulary?) is not understood by the lay people. Antal calls them particular sentences or professional sentences.
In contrast to those particular sentences there are utterances that can be addressed by everybody to anybody. He calls them universal sentences. Then he discards the idea of analysing linguistically the linguistic content of particular sentences. 
But his main point is that the analysis of content falls outside the scope of linguistics in the case of either type of sentence. Then he turns to Logic to see the difference in the object of study in Logic and Linguistics. Following the classes of universal and particular sentences he claims that there are universal and particular judgments and concludes that the falsity or truth of particular or universal judgments cannot be decided by Logic is qualified to scrutinize not the content of judgements, but only their form. 
The content of sentences in Linguistics consist of other form of other sentences, in Logic judgements As judgements may be expressed in sentences the subject of Linguistics and Logic is the same. But sentence form and judgement form are not the same. To sum up he writes
a)	All judgements are sentences
b)	not all sentences are judgements
c)	sentence form and judgment form are two different things
d)	sentence content and judgment content are identical.
In Content and Understanding he starts with saying that content forms no part of language. If content is taken away, form remains, but form is meaningful. As in sign, meaning and denotatum, you have from, meaning and content here. Understanding of meaning and understanding content are not the same thing: the latter is not dependent on linguistic condition.`
The sentence is the minimum unit of content and at the same time the maximum unit of meaning
The only legitimate question that can be raised with regard to meaning whether it is complete, or incomplete, correct or incorrect as far as language usage is concerned
Meaning units the form of the sentence (its signs) and the content of the sentence, The existence of meaning 
Is merely postulated, because otherwise we could not explain the relationship between physical i.e. phonic signs and extralingual context  As meaning has a latent character we can only infer it, but cannot directly study it. Neither is content a real guide in matters of meaning. Consequently, there is only one solution left: to examine the form of the sentence.
In the Hypothetical nature of meaning
Language is nothing but a hypothetical system
Wittgenstein writes that the meaning of a word is its use
If words are arranged in concept system then they no longer function as words i.e. linguistic units, but only as a material expressions of something which is not immediately lingual 
The he criticises the word dictionary and claims that the morpheme dictionary is the real dictionary for which he blames lexicology
Emotion can only be the denotatum of language
Page 61.
Is it possible to speak of perfect synonyms?
There are no perfect synonyms (neither can there be absolutely identical denotata – in the case of two different things.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genezistan (talk • contribs) 04:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so you think Antal's theories should be included. Anyone else?VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

text: To me, Genezistan's work on Antal seems worthy of its own article, or at least to be included in one, but in this magnitude too extensive to be included in this article. For this article I would suggest listing ultra-concise outlines of how the term "meaning" was defined by noted thinkers, each linked to a separate article (or section of another article) with a more elaborated account (a "main article"). Genezistan's work on Antal's analysis of "meaning" could either become the content of an article titled "Meaning (László Antal)" or incorporated into the existing article László Antal. Dan ☺ 14:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  From a Book Review of Laszlo Antal: Content, Meaning and Understanding, Mouton and Co, The Hague, 1964. 63 p. (Introduction, Sentence and Judgement, Content and Understanding, The Hypothetical Nature of Meaning, Meaning and Emotion, Bibliography.) 

message: There are whole sections of this article that are semantically meaningless (pardon the irony). For example: 
Linguistic context becomes important when looking at particular said he saw a guy riding an elephant" than it does if preceded by " of a phrase
What is that supposed to mean? --Coching (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Results of (presumed) vandalism - reverted, problem fixed. Hpvpp (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

text: Removed. You could have taken it out yourself. Hpvpp (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs heavy editing 

message: What is this supposed to mean?
"The field of semantics in so far is it is objectified by not considering particular situations and the real intentions of speakers and writers examines the ways in which words, phrases, and sentences can have meaning. This type of semantics is contrasted with communication-focused semantics where understanding the intent and assumptions of particular speakers and writers is primary as in the idea that people mean and not words, sentences or proposition. An underlying difference is that where causes are identified with relations or laws then it is normal to objectify meaning, while if causes are identified with particular agents, objects, or forces as if to cause means to influence as most historians and practical people assume, then real or non-objectified meaning is primary."
intellectual charabia (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/charabia)
Denispir (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  meaning, please? 

message: For the introduction section, it seems a bit short and I am not sure if that is the best definition of meaning. In my personal opinion, a meaning of something might be understand differently depending on individual's thought. It can be categorized into either surface meaning or underlying meaning too. For the first section, I would recommend the title of 'pragmatics' changes to 'pragmatic meaning'. This makes the sub-section titles to be consistent like 'semantic meaning' and 'conceptual meaning'. On the other hand, I suggest there should include some examples showing how pragmatic is different from semantic. Also, under semantic section, it talks about three different categories of semantic. I would say it is a good idea to give a brief introduction for each of it. For the conceptual meaning section, would it be a good idea to link 'Anglo-Saxon' to its page in case some readers want to know more about it? In general, this article gives a very brief information about meaning in linguistics point of view. More details and reliable sources are needed to enrich this article. --Kathyhht (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal thought about some improvement