Oke hello guys how are you..?? I hope you always healty.. Guys now i want to publish the review article from my friend about the materi in semantic maybe this review can give you some information. Oke check it out..
(1). DESI NORI SAHPUTRI
A. Demograph
Title : Theories of Semantics: Merits and Limitations
Searcher 1: Saleh Mustafa Ramadan
From : Al-Zaytoonah Private University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Searcher 2: Taleb I. Ababneh
From : Irbid National University- Jordan, Irbid, Jordan.
Pages : 9
B. Content
This discussion will cover some of the well–known theories of meaning formulated in the last century. Mainly referential theory of meaning, non– referential theory of meaning and generative grammarian theory of meaning are discussed. Some assumptions, merits and limitations for each theory are also described.
C. Result/Finding
Meaning as the Relationship between Words and Objects
Greek philosophers say that there is a relationship between words and objects. In other words, the best way of indicating the meaning of a word is to refer to the object represented by that word.
Meaning as a Triangular Relationship
The symbol is the spoken or written word; the reference is the information that the spoken or written shape of the word conveys to the reader/ hearer; and the referent is the thing or the object we talk about.
Bloomfield’s View of Meaning
Bloomfield (1933) stated that the context of situation was an essential part of meaning. He defined the meaning of a linguistic form as the situation in which the speaker utters it and the response which it calls forth in the hearer.
The Non–Referential Theory of Meaning
The non–referential approach as suggested by its name doesn’t take into consideration the context of situations or the reference in determining what meaning is. There is a relationship between language and the outside world because language doesn’t exist in vacuum. Therefore, this may indicate a weakness in this theory.
The Generative Grammarian Theory
This approach was based on the assumption that syntactic rules operate independently of meaning. Chomsky and others believe that changing the active into passive structures does not change the meaning of the sentence.
D. Strength and Weakness
Strength : the author expose many theory based on many experts . So it make sure as a reader to used this theory to add more knowledge about semantics. Also, it is easy to understand to get point in this article.
Weakness : this article much give theory but a little example about it. So, it make the readers to hard thinking to search what else the example about this theory means.
E. Conclusion
The researcher has discussed the main principles of three well–known theories of meaning, namely the referential theory to meaning, the non–referential theory to meaning and the generative grammarian theory to meaning.
(2). NABILA FIRDA ASY’ARI
A. Demograph
Title : Semantics and Theories of Semantics
Author : Abbas Bukhari
Pages : 15
B. Content
This article shared the meaning of semantics and make the difficulties in the study of meaning will be clearly. And it discussed the different aspect of meaning and also some term and distinction in semantics.
C. Result/ Findings
How is language organized in order to be meaningful? This is the question we ask and attempt to answer at the level of semantics. Semantics is that level of linguistic analysis where meaning is analyzed. Meaning is related very closely to the human capacity to think logically and to understand. So when we try to analyze meaning, we are trying to analyse our own capacity to think and understand, our own ability to create meaning.
Meaning can be any of the following:
1. An intrinsic property of some thing
2. Other words related to that word in a dictionary
3. The connotations of a word
4. The thing to which the speaker of that word refers
5. The thing to which the speaker of that word should refer
6. The thing to which the speaker of that word believes himself to be referring
7. The thing to which the hearer of that word believes is being referred to.
D. Strength and Weakness
Strength : the explanation and theoris of semantics is very completed. For bigginer its easy to understand with the interesting topic in this article. Many example we can see and you will be more understand and know about what is semantics.
Weakness : so many word in this article but the author not arrange and in the last section I had got confused to see what the author means until he wrote it . I do not know what the topic in the last he wrote.
E. Conclusion
The problem of ‘meaning’ is quite difficult; it is because of its toughness that some linguists went on to the extent of excluding semantics from linguistics. A well-known structuralist made the astonishing statement that ‘linguistic system of a language does not include the semantics. When we talk about meaning, we are talking about the ability of human beings to understand one another when they speak. This ability is to some extent connected with grammar. Also, The sound patterns of language are studied at the level of phonology and the organization of words and sentences is studied at the level of morphology and syntax. These are in turn organized in such a way that we can convey meaningful messages or receive and understand messages.
(3). SUSI LESTARI
A. Demograph
Title : Frame semantics a brief introduction
Author : Diego Gavagna
From : Aarhus University, 2013
Pages : 12
B. Content
It tries to give a comprehensive explanation on how meanings are structured and associated to words in a semantic structure and how these provide access to our conceptual system, the inventory of structured knowledge that we use to navigate the world.This view gives account for relations between words that cannot just be ascribed to structural semantic relations like hyponymy, synonymy orantonymy. Instead, it describes the interdependencies between words based on background knowledge that humans acquire through experience and store in long-term memory.
C. Result/Findings
Frame semantics can be thought of as the effort to understand what reason a speech community might have found for creating the category represented by the word, and to explain the word’s meaning by presenting and clarifying that reason.
From these word, beside the systemic interrelations between words and between the respective underlying concepts, emerges one further characteristic of frame semantics,namely, that knowledge is grounded in human interaction with others and with the world.Thus, frames are prior expectations and knowledge about the world that is the whole time strengthen, weakened and transformed according to the information our brain receives from the perceptive senses.
So that boy would be defined as [human], [male], [young]. girl would be described as [human],[minus male], [young].The necessary and sufficient condition for it would be [human],[male], [adult], [minus married]. However this definition would include as bachelor also the Pope, proving that the accuracy of the definition is strongly undermined.
D. Strength and Weakness
Strength : the author analysis is something new that we found of many article about semantic. I am so interested with the Frame semantics. The example is great. There are some pictures here. The letter that author used is so neat and will be easy to understand.
Weakness: the author said his dissertation is can not be considered exhaustive, but he have tried to give described the main terms of the theory.
E. Conclusion
Many other authors have developed this framework, including the remarkable attempt by Lakoff & Johnson in describing the concept of reframing in political discourse based on frame semantics’ approach and the role of metaphors and metonymy in natural languages. Lakoff’s approach is particularly interesting because it is not just an analytical framework but very much also a set of practical tools usable in everyday life.Another important contribution is the one proposed by Fauconier and Turner describing the characteristics of mental spaces that pose the ground for blending theory.
This article give an account for frame semantics approach to knowledge representations as described by Fillmore and the researchers that have developed his approach, including Langacker’s domains’ description and Barsalou perceptual symbols.
