fbpx
Wikipedia

Semantics

April 11, 2024

For other uses, see Semantics (disambiguation).

Semantics is the study of linguistic meaning. It examines what meaning is, how words get their meaning, and how the meaning of a complex expression depends on its parts. Part of this process involves the distinction between sense and reference. Sense is given by the ideas and concepts associated with an expression while reference is the object to which an expression points. Semantics contrasts with syntax, which studies the rules that dictate how to create grammatically correct sentences, and pragmatics, which investigates how people use language in communication.

A central topic in semantics concerns the relation between language, world, and mental concepts.

Lexical semantics is the branch of semantics that studies word meaning. It examines whether words have one or several meanings and in what lexical relations they stand to one another. Phrasal semantics studies the meaning of sentences by exploring the phenomenon of compositionality or how new meanings can be created by arranging words. Formal semantics relies on logic and mathematics to provide precise frameworks of the relation between language and meaning. Cognitive semantics examines meaning from a psychological perspective and assumes a close relation between language ability and the conceptual structures used to understand the world. Other branches of semantics include conceptual semantics, computational semantics, and cultural semantics.

Theories of meaning are general explanations of the nature of meaning and how expressions are endowed with it. According to referential theories, the meaning of an expression is the part of reality to which it points. Ideational theories identify meaning with mental states like the ideas that an expression evokes in the minds of language users. According to causal theories, meaning is determined by causes and effects, which behaviorist semantics analyzes in terms of stimulus and response. Further theories of meaning include truth-conditional semantics, verificationist theories, the use theory, and inferentialist semantics.

The study of semantic phenomena began during antiquity but was not recognized as an independent field of inquiry until the 19th century. Semantics is relevant to the fields of formal logic, computer science, and psychology.

Definition and related fields edit

Semantics is the study of meaning in languages.[1] It is a systematic inquiry that examines what linguistic meaning is and how it arises.[2] It investigates how expressions are built up from different layers of constituents, like morphemes, words, clauses, sentences, and texts, and how the meanings of the constituents affect one another.[3] Semantics can focus on a specific language, like English, but in its widest sense, it investigates meaning structures relevant to all languages.[4][a][b] As a descriptive discipline, it aims to determine how meaning works without prescribing what meaning people should associate with particular expressions.[7] Some of its key questions are "How do the meanings of words combine to create the meanings of sentences?", "How do meanings relate to the minds of language users, and to the things words refer to?", and "What is the connection between what a word means, and the contexts in which it is used?".[8] The main disciplines engaged in semantics are linguistics, semiotics, and philosophy.[9] Besides its meaning as a field of inquiry, semantics can also refer to theories within this field, like truth-conditional semantics,[10] and to the meaning of particular expressions, like the semantics of the word fairy.[11]

As a field of inquiry, semantics has both an internal and an external side. The internal side is interested in the connection between words and the mental phenomena they evoke, like ideas and conceptual representations. The external side examines how words refer to objects in the world and under what conditions a sentence is true.[12]

Many related disciplines investigate language and meaning. Semantics contrasts with other subfields of linguistics focused on distinct aspects of language. Phonology studies the different types of sounds used in languages and how sounds are connected to form words while syntax examines the rules that dictate how to arrange words to create sentences. These divisions are reflected in the fact that it is possible to master some aspects of a language while lacking others, like when a person knows how to pronounce a word without knowing its meaning.[13] As a subfield of semiotics, semantics has a more narrow focus on meaning in language while semiotics studies both linguistic and non-linguistic signs. Semiotics investigates additional topics like the meaning of non-verbal communication, conventional symbols, and natural signs independent of human interaction. Examples include nodding to signal agreement, stripes on a uniform signifying rank, and the presence of vultures indicating a nearby animal carcass.[14]

Semantics further contrasts with pragmatics, which is interested in how people use language in communication.[15] An expression like "That's what I'm talking about" can mean many things depending on who says it and in what situation. Semantics is interested in the possible meanings of expressions: what they can and cannot mean in general. In this regard, it is sometimes defined as the study of context-independent meaning. Pragmatics examines which of these possible meanings is relevant in a particular case. In contrast to semantics, it is interested in actual performance rather than in the general linguistic competence underlying this performance.[16] This includes the topic of additional meaning that can be inferred even though it is not literally expressed, like what it means if a speaker remains silent on a certain topic.[17] A closely related distinction by the semiotician Charles W. Morris holds that semantics studies the relation between words and the world, pragmatics examines the relation between words and users, and syntax focuses on the relation between different words.[18]

Semantics is related to etymology, which studies how words and their meanings changed in the course of history.[7] Another connected field is hermeneutics, which is the art or science of interpretation and is concerned with the right methodology of interpreting text in general and scripture in particular.[19] Metasemantics examines the metaphysical foundations of meaning and aims to explain where it comes from or how it arises.[20]

The word semantics originated from the Ancient Greek adjective semantikos, meaning 'relating to signs', which is a derivative of sēmeion, the noun for 'sign'. It was initially used for medical symptoms and only later acquired its wider meaning regarding any type of sign, including linguistic signs. The word semantics entered the English language from the French term semantique, which the linguist Michel Bréal first introduced at the end of the 19th century.[21]

Basic concepts edit

Meaning edit

Semantics studies meaning in language, which is limited to the meaning of linguistic expressions. It concerns how signs are interpreted and what information they contain. An example is the meaning of words provided in dictionary definitions by giving synonymous expressions or paraphrases, like defining the meaning of the term ram as adult male sheep.[22] There are many forms of non-linguistic meaning that are not examined by semantics. Actions and policies can have meaning in relation to the goal they serve. Fields like religion and spirituality are interested in the meaning of life, which is about finding a purpose in life or the significance of existence in general.[23]

 
Semantics is not focused on subjective speaker meaning and is instead interested in public meaning, like the meaning found in general dictionary definitions.

Linguistic meaning can be analyzed on different levels. Word meaning is studied by lexical semantics and investigates the denotation of individual words. It is often related to concepts of entities, like how the word dog is associated with the concept of the four-legged domestic animal. Sentence meaning falls into the field of phrasal semantics and concerns the denotation of full sentences. It usually expresses a concept applying to a type of situation, as in the sentence "the dog has ruined my blue skirt".[24] The meaning of a sentence is often referred to as a proposition.[25] Different sentences can express the same proposition, like the English sentence "the tree is green" and the German sentence "der Baum ist grün".[26] Utterance meaning is studied by pragmatics and is about the meaning of an expression on a particular occasion. Sentence meaning and utterance meaning come apart in cases where expressions are used in a non-literal way, as is often the case with irony.[27]

Semantics is primarily interested in the public meaning that expressions have, like the meaning found in general dictionary definitions. Speaker meaning, by contrast, is the private or subjective meaning that individuals associate with expressions. It can diverge from the literal meaning, like when a person associates the word needle with pain or drugs.[28]

Sense and reference edit

 
The distinction between sense and reference was first introduced by the philosopher Gottlob Frege.[29]

Meaning is often analyzed in terms of sense and reference,[30] also referred to as intension and extension or connotation and denotation.[31] The referent of an expression is the object to which the expression points. The sense of an expression is the way in which it refers to that object or how the object is interpreted. For example, the expressions morning star and evening star refer to the same planet, just like the expressions 2 + 2 and 3 + 1 refer to the same number. The meanings of these expressions differ not on the level of reference but on the level of sense.[32] Sense is sometimes understood as a mental phenomenon that helps people identify the objects to which an expression refers.[33] Some semanticists focus primarily on sense or primarily on reference in their analysis of meaning.[34] To grasp the full meaning of an expression, it is usually necessary to understand both to what entities in the world it refers and how it describes them.[35]

The distinction between sense and reference can explain identity statements, which can be used to show how two expressions with a different sense have the same referent. For instance, the sentence "the morning star is the evening star" is informative and people can learn something from it. The sentence "the morning star is the morning star", by contrast, is an uninformative tautology since the expressions are identical not only on the level of reference but also on the level of sense.[36]

Compositionality edit

Compositionality is a key aspect of how languages construct meaning. It is the idea that the meaning of a complex expression is a function of the meanings of its parts. It is possible to understand the meaning of the sentence "Zuzana owns a dog" by understanding what the words Zuzana, owns, a and dog mean and how they are combined.[37] In this regard, the meaning of complex expressions like sentences is different from word meaning since it is normally not possible to deduce what a word means by looking at its letters and one needs to consult a dictionary instead.[38]

Compositionality is often used to explain how people can formulate and understand an almost infinite number of meanings even though the amount of words and cognitive resources is finite. Many sentences that people read are sentences that they have never seen before and they are nonetheless able to understand them.[37]

When interpreted in a strong sense, the principle of compositionality states that the meaning of a complex expression is not just affected by its parts and how they are combined but fully determined this way. It is controversial whether this claim is correct or whether additional aspects influence meaning. For example, context may affect the meaning of expressions; idioms like "kick the bucket" carry figurative or non-literal meanings that are not directly reducible to the meanings of their parts.[37]

Truth and truth conditions edit

Truth is a property of statements that accurately present the world and true statements are in accord with reality. Whether a statement is true usually depends on the relation between the statement and the rest of the world. The truth conditions of a statement are the way the world needs to be for the statement to be true. For example, it belongs to the truth conditions of the sentence "it is raining outside" that raindrops are falling from the sky. The sentence is true if it is used in a situation in which the truth conditions are fulfilled, i.e., if there is actually rain outside.[39]

Truth conditions play a central role in semantics and some theories rely exclusively on truth conditions to analyze meaning. To understand a statement usually implies that one has an idea about the conditions under which it would be true. This can happen even if one does not know whether the conditions are fulfilled.[39]

Semiotic triangle edit

 
The semiotic triangle aims to explain how the relation between language (Symbol) and world (Referent) is mediated by the language users (Thought or Reference).

The semiotic triangle, also called the triangle of meaning, is a model used to explain the relation between language, language users, and the world, represented in the model as Symbol, Thought or Reference, and Referent. The symbol is a linguistic signifier, either in its spoken or written form. The central idea of the model is that there is no direct relation between a linguistic expression and what it refers to, as was assumed by earlier dyadic models. This is expressed in the diagram by the dotted line between symbol and referent.[40]

The model holds instead that the relation between the two is mediated through a third component. For example, the term apple stands for a type of fruit but there is no direct connection between this string of letters and the corresponding physical object. The relation is only established indirectly through the mind of the language user. When they see the symbol, it evokes a mental image or a concept, which establishes the connection to the physical object. This process is only possible if the language user learned the meaning of the symbol before. The meaning of a specific symbol is governed by the conventions of a particular language. The same symbol may refer to one object in one language, to another object in a different language, and to no object in another language. [40]

Others edit

Many other concepts are used to describe semantic phenomena. The semantic role of an expression is the function it fulfills in a sentence. In the sentence "the boy kicked the ball", the boy has the role of the agent who performs an action. The ball is the theme or patient of this action as something that does not act itself but is involved in or affected by the action. The same entity can be both agent and patient, like when someone cuts themselves. An entity has the semantic role of an instrument if it is used to perform the action, for instance, when cutting something with a knife then the knife is the instrument. For some sentences, no action is described but an experience takes place, like when a girl sees a bird. In this case, the girl has the role of the experiencer. Other common semantic roles are location, source, goal, beneficiary, and stimulus.[41]

Lexical relations describe how words stand to one another. Two words are synonyms if they share the same or a very similar meaning, like car and automobile or buy and purchase. Antonyms have opposite meanings, such as the contrast between alive and dead or fast and slow.[c] One term is a hyponym of another term if the meaning of the first term is included in the meaning of the second term. For example, ant is a hyponym of insect. A prototype is a hyponym that has characteristic features of the type it belongs to. A robin is a prototype of a bird but a penguin is not. Two words with the same pronunciation are homophones like flour and flower, while two words with the same spelling are homonyms, like a bank of a river in contrast to a bank as a financial institution.[d] Hyponymy is closely related to meronymy, which describes the relation between part and whole. For instance, wheel is a meronym of car.[44] An expression is ambiguous if it has more than one possible meaning. In some cases, it is possible to disambiguate them to discern the intended meaning.[45] The term polysemy is used if the different meanings are closely related to one another, like the meanings of the word head, which can refer to the topmost part of the human body or the top-ranking person in an organization.[44]

The meaning of words can often be subdivided into meaning components called semantic features. The word horse has the semantic feature animate but lacks the semantic feature human. It may not always be possible to fully reconstruct the meaning of a word by identifying all its semantic features.[46]

A semantic or lexical field is a group of words that are all related to the same activity or subject. For instance, the semantic field of cooking includes words like bake, boil, spice, and pan.[47]

The context of an expression refers to the situation or circumstances in which it is used and includes time, location, speaker, and audience. It also encompasses other passages in a text that come before and after it.[48] Context affects the meaning of various expressions, like the deictic expression here and the anaphoric expression she.[49]

A syntactic environment is extensional or transparent if it is always possible to exchange expressions with the same reference without affecting the truth value of the sentence. For example, the environment of the sentence "the number 8 is even" is extensional because replacing the expression the number 8 with the number of planets in the solar system does not change its truth value. For intensional or opaque contexts, this type of substitution is not always possible. For instance, the embedded clause in "Paco believes that the number 8 is even" is intensional since Paco may not know that the number of planets in the solar system is 8.[50]

Semanticists commonly distinguish the language they study, called object language, from the language they use to express their findings, called metalanguage. When a professor uses Japanese to teach their student how to interpret the language of first-order logic then the language of first-order logic is the object language and Japanese is the metalanguage. The same language may occupy the role of object language and metalanguage at the same time. This is the case in monolingual English dictionaries, in which both the entry term belonging to the object language and the definition text belonging to the metalanguage are taken from the English language.[51]

Branches edit

Lexical semantics edit

Main article: Lexical semantics

Lexical semantics is the sub-field of semantics that studies word meaning.[52] It examines semantic aspects of individual words and the vocabulary as a whole. This includes the study of lexical relations between words, such as whether two terms are synonyms or antonyms.[53] Lexical semantics categorizes words based on semantic features they share and groups them into semantic fields unified by a common subject.[54] This information is used to create taxonomies to organize lexical knowledge, for example, by distinguishing between physical and abstract entities and subdividing physical entities into stuff and individuated entities.[55] Further topics of interest are polysemy, ambiguity, and vagueness.[56]

Lexical semantics is sometimes divided into two complementary approaches: semasiology and onomasiology. Semasiology starts from words and examines what their meaning is. It is interested in whether words have one or several meanings and how those meanings are related to one another. Instead of going from word to meaning, onomasiology goes from meaning to word. It starts with a concept and examines what names this concept has or how it can be expressed in a particular language.[57]

Some semanticists also include the study of lexical units other than words in the field of lexical semantics. Compound expressions like being under the weather have a non-literal meaning that acts as a unit and is not a direct function of its parts. Another topic concerns the meaning of morphemes that make up words, for instance, how negative prefixes like in- and dis- affect the meaning of the words they are part of, as in inanimate and dishonest.[58]

Phrasal semantics edit

Phrasal semantics studies the meaning of sentences. It relies on the principle of compositionality to explore how the meaning of complex expressions arises from the combination of their parts.[59][e] The different parts can be analyzed as subject, predicate, or argument. The subject of a sentence usually refers to a specific entity while the predicate describes a feature of the subject or an event in which the subject participates. Arguments provide additional information to complete the predicate.[61] For example, in the sentence "Mary hit the ball", Mary is the subject, hit is the predicate, and the ball is an argument.[61] A more fine-grained categorization distinguishes between different semantic roles of words, such as agent, patient, theme, location, source, and goal.[62]

 
Parse trees, like the constituency-based parse tree, show how expressions are combined to form sentences.

Verbs usually function as predicates and often help to establish connections between different expressions to form a more complex meaning structure. In the expression "Beethoven likes Schubert", the verb like connects a liker to the object of their liking.[63] Other sentence parts modify meaning rather than form new connections. For instance, the adjective red modifies the color of another entity in the expression red car.[64] A further compositional device is variable binding, which is used to determine the reference of a term. For example, the last part of the expression "the woman who likes Beethoven" specifies which woman is meant.[65] Parse trees can be used to show the underlying hierarchy employed to combine the different parts.[66] Various grammatical devices, like the gerund form, also contribute to meaning and are studied by grammatical semantics.[67]

Formal semantics edit

Main article: Formal semantics (natural language)

Formal semantics uses formal tools from logic and mathematics to analyze meaning in natural languages.[f] It aims to develop precise logical formalisms to clarify the relation between expressions and their denotation.[69] One of its key tasks is to provide frameworks of how language represents the world, for example, using ontological models to show how linguistic expressions map to the entities of that model.[69] A common idea is that words refer to individual objects or groups of objects while sentences relate to events and states. Sentences are mapped to a truth value based on whether their description of the world is in correspondence with its ontological model.[70]

Formal semantics further examines how to use formal mechanisms to represent linguistic phenomena such as quantification, intensionality, noun phrases, plurals, mass terms, tense, and modality.[71] Montague semantics is an early and influential theory in formal semantics that provides a detailed analysis of how the English language can be represented using mathematical logic. It relies on higher-order logic, lambda calculus, and type theory to show how meaning is created through the combination of expressions belonging to different syntactic categories.[72]

Dynamic semantics is a subfield of formal semantics that focuses on how information grows over time. According to it, "meaning is context change potential": the meaning of a sentence is not given by the information it contains but by the information change it brings about relative to a context.[73]

Cognitive semantics edit

Main article: Cognitive semantics
 
Cognitive semantics is interested in the conceptual structures underlying language, which can be articulated through the contrast between profile and base. For instance, the term hypotenuse profiles a straight line against the background of a right-angled triangle.

Cognitive semantics studies the problem of meaning from a psychological perspective or how the mind of the language user affects meaning. As a subdiscipline of cognitive linguistics, it sees language as a wide cognitive ability that is closely related to the conceptual structures used to understand and represent the world.[74][g] Cognitive semanticists do not draw a sharp distinction between linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the world and see them instead as interrelated phenomena.[76] They study how the interaction between language and human cognition affects the conceptual organization in very general domains like space, time, causation, and action.[77] The contrast between profile and base is sometimes used to articulate the underlying knowledge structure. The profile of a linguistic expression is the aspect of the knowledge structure that it brings to the foreground while the base is the background that provides the context of this aspect without being at the center of attention.[78] For example, the profile of the word hypotenuse is a straight line while the base is a right-angled triangle of which the hypotenuse forms a part.[79][h]

Cognitive semantics further compares the conceptual patterns and linguistic typologies across languages and considers to what extent the cognitive conceptual structures of humans are universal or relative to their linguistic background.[81] Another research topic concerns the psychological processes involved in the application of grammar.[82] Other investigated phenomena include categorization, which is understood as a cognitive heuristic to avoid information overload by regarding different entities in the same way,[83] and embodiment, which concerns how the language user's bodily experience affects the meaning of expressions.[84]

Frame semantics is an important subfield of cognitive semantics.[85] Its central idea is that the meaning of terms cannot be understood in isolation from each other but needs to be analyzed on the background of the conceptual structures they depend on. These structures are made explicit in terms of semantic frames. For example, words like bride, groom, and honeymoon evoke in the mind the frame of marriage.[86]

Others edit

Conceptual semantics shares with cognitive semantics the idea of studying linguistic meaning from a psychological perspective by examining how humans conceptualize and experience the world. It holds that meaning is not about the objects to which expressions refer but about the cognitive structure of human concepts that connect thought, perception, and action. Conceptual semantics differs from cognitive semantics by introducing a strict distinction between meaning and syntax and by relying on various formal devices to explore the relation between meaning and cognition.[87]

Computational semantics examines how the meaning of natural language expressions can be represented and processed on computers.[88] It often relies on the insights of formal semantics and applies them to problems that can be computationally solved.[89] Some of its key problems include computing the meaning of complex expressions by analyzing their parts, handling ambiguity, vagueness, and context-dependence, and using the extracted information in automatic reasoning.[90] It forms part of computational linguistics, artificial intelligence, and cognitive science.[88] Its applications include machine learning and machine translation.[91]

Cultural semantics studies the relation between linguistic meaning and culture. It compares conceptual structures in different languages and is interested in how meanings evolve and change because of cultural phenomena associated with politics, religion, and customs.[92] For example, address practices encode cultural values and social hierarchies, as in the difference of politeness of expressions like tu and usted in Spanish or du and Sie in German in contrast to English, which lacks these distinctions and uses the pronoun you in either case.[93] Closely related fields are intercultural semantics, cross-cultural semantics, and comparative semantics.[94]

Pragmatic semantics studies how the meaning of an expression is shaped by the situation in which it is used. It is based on the idea that communicative meaning is usually context-sensitive and depends on who participates in the exchange, what information they share, and what their intentions and background assumptions are. It focuses on communicative actions, of which linguistic expressions only form one part. Some theorists include these topics within the scope of semantics while others consider them part of the distinct discipline of pragmatics.[95]

Theories of meaning edit

Theories of meaning explain what meaning is, what meaning an expression has, and how the relation between expression and meaning is established.[96]

Referential edit

 
Referential theories identify meaning with the entities to which expressions point.

Referential theories state that the meaning of an expression is the entity to which it points.[97] The meaning of singular terms like names is the individual to which they refer. For example, the meaning of the name George Washington is the person with this name.[98] General terms refer not to a single entity but to the set of objects to which this term applies. In this regard, the meaning of the term cat is the set of all cats.[99] Similarly, verbs usually refer to classes of actions or events and adjectives refer to properties of individuals and events.[100]

Simple referential theories face problems for meaningful expressions that have no clear referent. Names like Pegasus and Santa Claus have meaning even though they do not point to existing entities.[101] Other difficulties concern cases in which different expressions are about the same entity. For instance, the expressions Roger Bannister and the first man to run a four-minute mile refer to the same person but do not mean exactly the same thing.[102] This is particularly relevant when talking about beliefs since a person may understand both expressions without knowing that they point to the same entity.[103] A further problem is given by expressions whose meaning depends on the context, like the deictic terms here and I.[104]

To avoid these problems, referential theories often introduce additional devices. Some identify meaning not directly with objects but with functions that point to objects. This additional level has the advantage of taking the context of an expression into account since the same expression may point to one object in one context and to another object in a different context. For example, the reference of the word here depends on the location in which it is used.[105] A closely related approach is possible world semantics, which allows expressions to refer not only to entities in the actual world but also to entities in other possible worlds.[i] According to this view, expressions like the first man to run a four-minute mile refer to different persons in different worlds. This view can also be used to analyze sentences that talk about what is possible or what is necessary: possibility is what is true in some possible worlds while necessity is what is true in all possible worlds.[107]

Ideational edit

 
Ideational theories identify meaning with the mental states of language users.

Ideational theories, also called mentalist theories, are not primarily interested in the reference of expressions and instead explain meaning in terms of the mental states of language users.[108] One historically influential approach articulated by John Locke holds that expressions stand for ideas in the speaker's mind. According to this view, the meaning of the word dog is the idea that people have of dogs. Language is seen as a medium used to transfer ideas from the speaker to the audience. After having learned the same meaning of signs, the speaker can produce a sign that corresponds to the idea in their mind and the perception of this sign evokes the same idea in the mind of the audience.[109]

A closely related theory focuses not directly on ideas but on intentions.[110] This view is particularly associated with Paul Grice, who observed that people usually communicate to cause some reaction in their audience. He held that the meaning of an expression is given by the intended reaction. This means that communication is not just about decoding what the speaker literally said but requires an understanding of their intention or why they said it.[111] For example, telling someone looking for petrol that "there is a garage around the corner" has the meaning that petrol can be obtained there because of the speaker's intention to help. This goes beyond the literal meaning, which has no explicit connection to petrol.[112]

Causal edit

Causal theories hold that the meaning of an expression depends on the causes and effects it has.[113] According to behaviorist semantics, also referred to as stimulus-response theory, the meaning of an expression is given by the situation that prompts the speaker to use it and the response it provokes in the audience.[114] For instance, the meaning of yelling "Fire!" is given by the presence of an uncontrolled fire and attempts to control it or seek safety.[115] Behaviorist semantics relies on the idea that learning a language consists in adopting behavioral patterns in the form of stimulus-response pairs.[116] One of its key motivations is to avoid private mental entities and define meaning instead in terms of publicly observable language behavior.[117]

Another causal theory focuses on the meaning of names and holds that a naming event is required to establish the link between name and named entity. This naming event acts as a form of baptism that establishes the first link of a causal chain in which all subsequent uses of the name participate.[118] According to this view, the name Plato refers to an ancient Greek philosopher because, at some point, he was originally named this way and people kept using this name to refer to him.[119] This view was originally formulated by Saul Kripke to apply to names only but has been extended to cover other types of speech as well.[120]

Others edit

Truth-conditional semantics analyzes the meaning of sentences in terms of their truth conditions. According to this view, to understand a sentence means to know what the world needs to be like for the sentence to be true.[121] Truth conditions can themselves be expressed through possible worlds. For example, the sentence "Hillary Clinton won the 2016 American presidential election" is false in the actual world but there are some possible worlds in which it is true.[122] The extension of a sentence can be interpreted as its truth value while its intension is the set of all possible worlds in which it is true.[123] Truth-conditional semantics is closely related to verificationist theories, which introduce the additional idea that there should be some kind of verification procedure to assess whether a sentence is true. They state that the meaning of a sentence consists in the method to verify it or in the circumstances that justify it.[124] For instance, scientific claims often make predictions, which can be used to confirm or disconfirm them using observation.[125] According to verificationism, sentences that can neither be verified nor falsified are meaningless.[126]

The use theory states that the meaning of an expression is given by the way it is utilized. This view was first introduced by Ludwig Wittgenstein, who understood language as a collection of language games. The meaning of expressions depends on how they are used inside a game and the same expression may have different meanings in different games.[127] Some versions of this theory identify meaning directly with patterns of regular use.[128] Others focus on social norms and conventions by additionally taking into account whether a certain use is considered appropriate in a given society.[129]

Inferentialist semantics, also called conceptual role semantics, holds that the meaning of an expression is given by the role it plays in the premises and conclusions of good inferences.[130] For example, one can infer from "x is a male sibling" that "x is a brother" and one can infer from "x is a brother" that "x has parents". According to inferentialist semantics, the meaning of the word brother is determined by these and all similar inferences that can be drawn.[131]

History edit

Semantics was established as an independent field of inquiry in the 19th century but the study of semantic phenomena began as early as the ancient period as part of philosophy and logic.[132][j] In ancient Greece, Plato (427–347 BCE) explored the relation between names and things in his dialogue Cratylus. It considers the positions of naturalism, which holds that things have their name by nature, and conventionalism, which states that names are related to their referents by customs and conventions among language users.[134] The book On Interpretation by Aristotle (384–322 BCE) introduced various conceptual distinctions that greatly influenced subsequent works in semantics. He developed an early form of the semantic triangle by holding that spoken and written words evoke mental concepts, which refer to external things by resembling them. For him, mental concepts are the same for all humans, unlike the conventional words they associate with those concepts.[135] The Stoics incorporated many of the insights of their predecessors to develop a complex theory of language through the perspective of logic. They discerned different kinds of words by their semantic and syntactic roles, such as the contrast between names, common nouns, and verbs. They also discussed the difference between statements, commands, and prohibitions.[136]

 
Bhartṛhari developed and compared various semantic theories of the meaning of words.[137]

In ancient India, the orthodox school of Nyaya held that all names refer to real objects. It explored how words lead to an understanding of the thing meant and what consequence this relation has to the creation of knowledge.[138] Philosophers of the orthodox school of Mīmāṃsā discussed the relation between the meanings of individual words and full sentences while considering which one is more basic.[139] The book Vākyapadīya by Bhartṛhari (4th–5th century CE) distinguished between different types of words and considered how they can carry different meanings depending on how they are used.[140] In ancient China, the Mohists argued that names play a key role in making distinctions to guide moral behavior.[141] They inspired the School of Names, which explored the relation between names and entities while examining how names are required to identify and judge entities.[142]

 
One of Peter Abelard's innovations was his focus on the meaning of full sentences rather than the meaning of individual words.

In the Middle Ages, Augustine of Hippo (354–430) developed a general conception of signs as entities that stand for other entities and convey them to the intellect. He was the first to introduce the distinction between natural and linguistic signs as different types belonging to a common genus.[143] Boethius (480–528) wrote a translation of and various comments on Aristotle's book On Interpretation, which popularized its main ideas and inspired reflections on semantic phenomena in the scholastic tradition.[144] An innovation in the semantics of Peter Abelard (1079–1142) was his interest in propositions or the meaning of sentences in contrast to the focus on the meaning of individual words by many of his predecessors. He further explored the nature of universals, which he understood as mere semantic phenomena of common names caused by mental abstractions that do not refer to any entities.[145] In the Arabic tradition, Ibn Faris (920–1004) identified meaning with the intention of the speaker while Abu Mansur al-Azhari (895–980) held that meaning resides directly in speech and needs to be extracted through interpretation.[146]

An important topic towards the end of the Middle Ages was the distinction between categorematic and syncategorematic terms. Categorematic terms have an independent meaning and refer to some part of reality, like horse and Socrates. Syncategorematic terms lack independent meaning and fulfill other semantic functions, such as modifying or quantifying the meaning of other expressions, like the words some, not, and necessarily.[147] An early version of the causal theory of meaning was proposed by Roger Bacon (c. 1219/20 – c. 1292), who held that things get names similar to how people get names through some kind of initial baptism.[148] His ideas inspired the tradition of the speculative grammarians, who proposed that there are certain universal structures found in all languages. They arrived at this conclusion by drawing an analogy between the modes of signification on the level of language, the modes of understanding on the level of mind, and the modes of being on the level of reality.[149]

In the early modern period, Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) distinguished between marks, which people use privately to recall their own thoughts, and signs, which are used publicly to communicate their ideas to others.[150] In their Port-Royal Logic, Antoine Arnauld (1612–1694) and Pierre Nicole (1625–1695) developed an early precursor of the distinction between intension and extension.[151] The Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke (1632–1704) presented an influential version of the ideational theory of meaning, according to which words stand for ideas and help people communicate by transferring ideas from one mind to another.[152] Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646–1716) understood language as the mirror of thought and tried to conceive the outlines of a universal formal language to express scientific and philosophical truths. This attempt inspired theorists Christian Wolff (1679–1754), Georg Bernhard Bilfinger (1693–1750), and Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728–1777) to develop the idea of a general science of sign systems.[153] Étienne Bonnot de Condillac (1715–1780) accepted and further developed Leibniz's idea of the linguistic nature of thought. Against Locke, he held that language is involved in the creation of ideas and is not merely a medium to communicate them.[154]

 
Michel Bréal coined the French term semantique and conceptualized the scope of this field of inquiry.

In the 19th century, semantics emerged and solidified as an independent field of inquiry. Christian Karl Reisig (1792–1829) is sometimes credited as the father of semantics since he clarified its concept and scope while also making various contributions to its key ideas.[155] Michel Bréal (1832–1915) followed him in providing a broad conception of the field, for which he coined the French term semantique.[156] John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) gave great importance to the role of names to refer to things. He distinguished between the connotation and denotation of names and held that propositions are formed by combining names.[157] Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) conceived semiotics as a general theory of signs with several subdisciplines, which were later identified by Charles W. Morris (1901–1979) as syntactics, semantics, and pragmatics. In his pragmatist approach to semantics, Peirce held that the meaning of conceptions consists in the entirety of their practical consequences.[158] The philosophy of Gottlob Frege (1848–1925) contributed to semantics on many different levels. Frege first introduced the distinction between sense and reference, and his development of predicate logic and the principle of compositionality formed the foundation of many subsequent developments in formal semantics.[159] Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) explored meaning from a phenomenological perspective by considering the mental acts that endow expressions with meaning. He held that meaning always implies reference to an object and expressions that lack a referent, like green is or, are meaningless.[160]

In the 20th century, Alfred Tarski (1901–1983) defined truth in formal languages through his semantic theory of truth, which was influential in the development of truth-conditional semantics by Donald Davidson (1917–2003).[161] Tarski's student Richard Montague (1930–1971) formulated a complex formal framework of the semantics of the English language, which was responsible for establishing formal semantics as a major area of research.[162] According to structural semantics,[k] which was inspired by the structuralist philosophy of Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913), language is a complex network of structural relations and the meanings of words are not fixed individually but depend on their position within this network.[164] The theory of general semantics was developed by Alfred Korzybski (1879–1950) as an inquiry into how language represents reality and affects human thought.[165] The contributions of George Lakoff (1941–present) and Ronald Langacker (1942–present) provided the foundation of cognitive semantics.[166] Charles J. Fillmore (1929–2014) developed frame semantics as a major approach in this area.[167] The closely related field of conceptual semantics was inaugurated by Ray Jackendoff (1945–present).[168]

In various disciplines edit

Logic edit

Main article: Semantics of logic

Logicians study correct reasoning and often develop formal languages to express arguments and assess their correctness.[169] One part of this process is to provide a semantics for a formal language to precisely define what its terms mean. A semantics of a formal language is a set of rules, usually expressed as a mathematical function, that assigns meanings to formal language expressions.[170] For example, the language of first-order logic uses lowercase letters for individual constants and uppercase letters for predicates. To express the sentence "Bertie is a dog", the formula   can be used where   is an individual constant for Bertie and   is a predicate for dog. Classical model-theoretic semantics assigns meaning to these terms by defining an interpretation function that maps individual constants to specific objects and predicates to sets of objects or tuples. The function maps   to Bertie and   to the set of all dogs. This way, it is possible to calculate the truth value of the sentence: it is true if Bertie is a member of the set of dogs and false otherwise.[171]

Formal logic aims to determine whether arguments are deductively valid, that is, whether the premises entail the conclusion.[172] Entailment can be defined in terms of syntax or in terms of semantics. Syntactic entailment, expressed with the symbol  , relies on rules of inference, which can be understood as procedures to transform premises and arrive at a conclusion. These procedures only take the logical form of the premises on the level of syntax into account and ignore what meaning they express. Semantic entailment, expressed with the symbol  , looks at the meaning of the premises, in particular, at their truth value. A conclusion follows semantically from a set of premises if the truth of the premises ensures the truth of the conclusion, that is, if any semantic interpretation function that assigns the premises the value true also assigns the conclusion the value true.[173]

Computer science edit

Main article: Semantics (computer science)

In computer science, the semantics of a program is how it behaves when a computer runs it. Semantics contrasts with syntax, which is the particular form in which instructions are expressed. The same behavior can usually be described with different forms of syntax. In JavaScript, this is the case for the commands i += 1 and i = i + 1, which are syntactically different expressions to increase the value of the variable i by one. This difference is also reflected in different programming languages since they rely on different syntax but can usually be employed to create programs with the same behavior on the semantic level.[174]

Static semantics focuses on semantic aspects that affect the compilation of a program. In particular, it is concerned with detecting errors of syntactically correct programs, such as type errors, which arise when an operation receives an incompatible data type. This is the case, for instance, if a function performing a numerical calculation is given a string instead of a number as an argument.[175] Dynamic semantics focuses on the run time behavior of programs, that is, what happens during the execution of instructions.[176] The main approaches to dynamic semantics are denotational, axiomatic, and operational semantics. Denotational semantics relies on mathematical formalisms to describe the effects of each element of the code. Axiomatic semantics uses deductive logic to analyze which conditions must be in place before and after the execution of a program. Operational semantics interprets the execution of a program as a series of steps, each involving the transition from one state to another state.[177]

Psychology edit

Main article: Semantics (psychology)

Psychological semantics examines psychological aspects of meaning. It is concerned with how meaning is represented on a cognitive level and what mental processes are involved in understanding and producing language. It further investigates how meaning interacts with other mental processes, such as the relation between language and perceptual experience.[178][l] Other issues concern how people learn new words and relate them to familiar things and concepts, how they infer the meaning of compound expressions they have never heard before, how they resolve ambiguous expressions, and how semantic illusions lead them to misinterpret sentences.[180]

One key topic is semantic memory, which is a form of general knowledge of meaning that includes the knowledge of language, concepts, and facts. It contrasts with episodic memory, which records events that a person experienced in their life. The comprehension of language relies on semantic memory and the information it carries about word meanings.[181] According to a common view, word meanings are stored and processed in relation to their semantic features. The feature comparison model states that sentences like "a robin is a bird" are assessed on a psychological level by comparing the semantic features of the word robin with the semantic features of the word bird. The assessment process is fast if their semantic features are similar, which is the case if the example is a prototype of the general category. For atypical examples, as in the sentence "a penguin is a bird", there is less overlap in the semantic features and the psychological process is significantly slower.[182]

See also edit

References edit

Notes edit

  1. ^ The study of meaning structures found in all languages is sometimes referred to as universal semantics.[5]
  2. ^ Semantics usually focuses on natural languages but it can also include the study of meaning in formal languages, like the language of first-order logic and programming languages.[6]
  3. ^ Antonym is an antonym of synonym.[42]
  4. ^ Some linguists use the term homonym for both phenomena.[43]
  5. ^ Some authors use the term compositional semantics for this type of inquiry.[60]
  6. ^ The term formal semantics is sometimes used in a different sense to refer to compositional semantics or to the study of meaning in the formal languages of systems of logic.[68]
  7. ^ Cognitive semantics does not accept the idea of linguistic relativity associated with the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis and holds instead that the underlying cognitive processes responsible for conceptual structures are independent of the language one speaks.[75]
  8. ^ Other examples are the word island, which profiles a landmass against the background of the surrounding water, and the word uncle, which profiles a human adult male against the background of kinship relations.[80]
  9. ^ A possible world is a complete way of how things could have been.[106]
  10. ^ The history of semantics is different from historical semantics, which studies how the meanings of words change through time.[133]
  11. ^ Some theorists use the term structural semantics in a different sense to refer to phrasal semantics.[163]
  12. ^ Some theorists use the term psychosemantics to refer to this discipline while others understand the term in a different sense.[179]

Citations edit

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^ Allan 2009, p. xi
  4. ^
  5. ^ Zaefferer 2019, p. 1
  6. ^
  7. ^ a b Griffiths & Cummins 2023, p. 12
  8. ^ Riemer 2010, p. 2
  9. ^
  10. ^ Carston 2011, p. 280
  11. ^ Williams 1997, p. 457
  12. ^
  13. ^
  14. ^
  15. ^
  16. ^
  17. ^ Griffiths & Cummins 2023, pp. 12–13
  18. ^ Bezuidenhout 2009, p. 875
  19. ^
  20. ^
  21. ^
  22. ^
  23. ^
  24. ^
  25. ^ Tondl 2012, p. 111
  26. ^ Olkowski & Pirovolakis 2019, pp. 65–66
  27. ^
  28. ^
  29. ^ Zalta 2022, § 1. Frege’s Life and Influences, § 3. Frege’s Philosophy of Language.
  30. ^
  31. ^
  32. ^
  33. ^
  34. ^
  35. ^ Cunningham 2009, p. 531
  36. ^ Marti 1998, Lead Section
  37. ^ a b c
  38. ^ Löbner 2013, pp. 7–8, 10–12
  39. ^ a b
  40. ^ a b
  41. ^
  42. ^ Heffer 2014, p. 42
  43. ^ Saeed 2009, p. 63
  44. ^ a b
  45. ^
  46. ^ Yule 2010, pp. 113–115
  47. ^
  48. ^
  49. ^
  50. ^
  51. ^
  52. ^
  53. ^
  54. ^
  55. ^ Pustejovsky 2009, p. 479
  56. ^
  57. ^
  58. ^
  59. ^
  60. ^
  61. ^ a b Fasold & Connor-Linton 2006, pp. 141–143
  62. ^
  63. ^ Jackendoff 2002, pp. 378–380
  64. ^ Jackendoff 2002, pp. 382–383
  65. ^ Jackendoff 2002, pp. 384–385
  66. ^
  67. ^ Wierzbicka 1988, p. 3
  68. ^
  69. ^ a b
  70. ^ Moeschler 2007, pp. 31–33
  71. ^ Portner & Partee 2008, pp. 3, 8–10, 35, 127, 324
  72. ^
  73. ^
  74. ^
  75. ^ Kortmann 2020, p. 165.
  76. ^ Taylor 2009, pp. 73–74
  77. ^ Li 2021
  78. ^
  79. ^
  80. ^ Taylor 2009, pp. 74–75
  81. ^
  82. ^
  83. ^ Taylor 2009, pp. 76–77
  84. ^ Taylor 2009, p. 82
  85. ^
  86. ^
  87. ^
  88. ^ a b
  89. ^ Bunt & Muskens 1999, pp. 1–2
  90. ^
  91. ^
  92. ^ Zhao 2023, Preface
  93. ^ Farese 2018, pp. 1–3
  94. ^ Peeters 2006, p. 25
  95. ^
  96. ^
  97. ^
  98. ^
  99. ^ Davis 2005, pp. 209–210
  100. ^ Gibbs 1994, pp. 29–30
  101. ^ Davis 2005, p. 211
  102. ^
  103. ^ Speaks 2021, § 2.1.2 Theories of Reference Vs. Semantic Theories
  104. ^ Speaks 2021, § 2.1.4 Character and Content, Context and Circumstance
  105. ^
  106. ^
  107. ^
  108. ^
  109. ^
  110. ^
  111. ^
  112. ^ Feng 2010, p. 19
  113. ^
  114. ^
  115. ^
  116. ^ Lyons 1996, pp. 123–125
  117. ^ Lyons 1996, pp. 120–121
  118. ^
  119. ^ Blackburn 2008a
  120. ^ Speaks 2021, § 3.2.1 Causal Origin
  121. ^
  122. ^ Berto & Jago 2023, § 1. Reasons for Introducing Impossible Worlds
  123. ^ Kearns 2011, pp. 8–11
  124. ^
  125. ^ Boyd, Gasper & Trout 1991, p. 5
  126. ^
  127. ^
  128. ^ Speaks 2021, § 3.2.4 Regularities in Use
  129. ^ Speaks 2021, § 3.2.5 Social Norms
  130. ^
    • Speaks 2021, § 2.2.3 Inferentialist Semantics
    • Whiting, Lead Section, § 1a. A Theory of Linguistic Meaning
    • Hess 2022, § Abstract, § 1 Introduction
  131. ^ Whiting, § 1a. A Theory of Linguistic Meaning
  132. ^
  133. ^
  134. ^
  135. ^
  136. ^
  137. ^ Bekkum et al. 1997, pp. 110–112
  138. ^
  139. ^ Bekkum et al. 1997, pp. 75–76
  140. ^
  141. ^
  142. ^
  143. ^
  144. ^
  145. ^
  146. ^
  147. ^
  148. ^
  149. ^
  150. ^
  151. ^
  152. ^
  153. ^
  154. ^
  155. ^ Nerlich 2019, pp. 218, 221–223
  156. ^
  157. ^ Kretzmann 2006, pp. 795–796
  158. ^
  159. ^
  160. ^ Kretzmann 2006, pp. 802–803
  161. ^
  162. ^
  163. ^ Rowe & Levine 2015, p. 151
  164. ^
  165. ^
  166. ^
  167. ^ Croft & Cruse 2004, p. 8
  168. ^ Östman & Fried 2005, pp. 191–192
  169. ^
  170. ^
  171. ^
  172. ^
  173. ^
  174. ^
  175. ^
  176. ^
  177. ^
  178. ^
  179. ^
  180. ^ Sanford 2009, pp. 793–797
  181. ^
  182. ^

Sources edit

  • Abaza, Jack (2023). The Definitive Answer to the Meaning of Life. Wipf and Stock. ISBN 979-8-385-20172-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • AHD Staff (2022). "Semantics". American Heritage Dictionary. Harper Collins. from the original on 31 January 2024. Retrieved 31 January 2024.
  • AHD Staff (2022). "Hermeneutics". American Heritage Dictionary. Harper Collins. from the original on 23 February 2024. Retrieved 31 January 2024.
  • Aklujkar, Ashok (1970). "Ancient Indian Semantics". Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. 51 (1/4): 11–29. ISSN 0378-1143. JSTOR 41688671.
  • Allan, Keith (2009). "Introduction". In Allan, Keith (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-95969-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Allan, Keith (2015). "3. A History of Semantics". In Riemer, Nick (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-41245-8. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Anderson, Derek Egan (2021). Metasemantics and Intersectionality in the Misinformation Age: Truth in Political Struggle. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-73339-1. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Andreou, Marios (2015). "Lexical Negation in Lexical Semantics: The Prefixes in- and dis-". Morphology. 25 (4): 391–410. doi:10.1007/s11525-015-9266-z.
  • Appiah, Kwame Anthony; Gutmann, Amy (1998). Color Conscious: The Political Morality of Race. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-400-82209-6. Retrieved 2024-02-18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Bagha, Karim Nazari (2011). "A Short Introduction to Semantics". Journal of Language Teaching and Research. 2 (6). doi:10.4304/jltr.2.6.1411-1419.
  • Bekkum, Wout Jac van; Houben, Jan; Sluiter, Ineke; Versteegh, Kees (1997). The Emergence of Semantics in Four Linguistic Traditions: Hebrew, Sanskrit, Greek, Arabic. John Benjamins. ISBN 978-9-027-29881-2. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Benin, Stephen D. (2012). The Footprints of God: Divine Accommodation in Jewish and Christian Thought. State University of New York Press. ISBN 978-0-791-49628-2. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Berto, Francesco; Jago, Mark (2023). "Impossible Worlds". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. from the original on 10 February 2021. Retrieved 17 February 2024.
  • Berwick, Robert C.; Stabler, Edward P. (2019). Minimalist Parsing. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-198-79508-7. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Bezuidenhout, A. (2009). "Semantics–Pragmatics Boundary". In Allan, Keith (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-95969-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Bieswanger, Markus; Becker, Annette (2017). Introduction to English Linguistics. UTB. ISBN 978-3-825-24528-3. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Blackburn, Simon (2008). "Truth Conditions". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-54143-0. from the original on 2024-02-08. Retrieved 2024-02-09.
  • Blackburn, Simon (2008). "Causal Theory of Meaning". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-54143-0. from the original on 2024-02-17. Retrieved 2024-02-18.
  • Blackburn, Simon (2008). "Syncategorematic". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-54143-0. from the original on 2024-02-23. Retrieved 2024-02-23.
  • Blackburn, Simon (2008). "Referentially Opaque/Transparent". The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-54143-0. from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-02-24.
  • Bohnemeyer, Jürgen (2021). Ten Lectures on Field Semantics and Semantic Typology. Brill. ISBN 978-9-004-36262-8. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Boyd, Richard; Gasper, Philip; Trout, J. D. (1991). The Philosophy of Science. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-52156-7. Retrieved 2024-02-18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Bublitz, Wolfram; Norrick, Neal R. (2011). Foundations of Pragmatics. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-110-21426-0. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Bunt, Harry; Muskens, Reinhard (1999). "Computational Semantics". Computing Meaning: Volume 1. Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-4231-1_1. ISBN 978-9-401-14231-1. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Burch, Robert; Parker, Kelly A. (2024). "Charles Sanders Peirce". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. from the original on 7 January 2020. Retrieved 22 February 2024.
  • Burgess, Alexis; Sherman, Brett (2014). "Introduction: A Plea for the Metaphysics of Meaning". In Burgess, Alexis; Sherman, Brett (eds.). Metasemantics: New Essays on the Foundations of Meaning. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-191-64835-9. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Cardona, Georgio R. (2019). Panini: A Survey of Research. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-110-80010-4. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Carston, Robyn (2011). "Truth-conditional Semantics". In Sbisà, Marina; Östman, Jan-Ola; Verschueren, Jef (eds.). Philosophical Perspectives for Pragmatics. John Benjamins. ISBN 978-9-027-20787-6. Retrieved 2024-02-10.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Chakrabarti, A. (1997). Denying Existence: The Logic, Epistemology and Pragmatics of Negative Existentials and Fictional Discourse. Springer. ISBN 978-0-792-34388-2. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Chapman, Siobhan; Routledge, Christopher (2009). "Ideational Theories". Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 84–85. doi:10.1515/9780748631421-033. ISBN 978-0-748-63142-1. Retrieved 2024-02-18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Chatzikyriakidis, Stergios; Luo, Zhaohui (2021). Formal Semantics in Modern Type Theories. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-786-30128-4. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Cohen, Jonathan (2009). The Red and the Real: An Essay on Color Ontology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-191-60960-2. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Cornish, Francis (1999). Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding: Evidence from English and French. Clarendon Press. ISBN 978-0-198-70028-9. Retrieved 2024-02-24.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Crimmins, Mark (1998). "Semantics". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-U036-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Croft, William; Cruse, D. Alan (2004). Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-66770-8. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Cunningham, D. J. (2009). "Meaning, Sense, and Reference". In Allan, Keith (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-95969-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Dale, Nell B.; Weems, Chip; Headington, Mark R. (2003). Programming and Problem Solving with Java. Jones & Bartlett. ISBN 978-0-763-70490-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Davis, Wayne A. (2005). Nondescriptive Meaning and Reference: An Ideational Semantics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-191-60309-9. from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-18.
  • Dirven, René; Verspoor, Marjolijn (2004). Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.). John Benjamins. ISBN 978-9-027-29541-5. Retrieved 2024-02-09.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Duignan, Brian (2023). "Semantics". Encyclopædia Britannica. from the original on 5 December 2023. Retrieved 17 February 2024.
  • Dummett, Michael (1981). Frege: Philosophy of Language. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-31931-8. Retrieved 2024-02-09.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Dummett, Michael (2008). Thought and Reality. Clarendon. ISBN 978-0-199-20727-5.
  • Edmonds, P. (2009). "Disambiguation". In Allan, Keith (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-95969-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Enfield, N. J. (2002). Ethnosyntax: Explorations in Grammar and Culture: Explorations in Grammar and Culture. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-191-58179-3. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Erk, Katrin (2018). "Computational Semantics". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-38465-5. from the original on 2024-02-13. Retrieved 2024-02-15.
  • Farese, Gian Marco (2018). The Cultural Semantics of Address Practices: A Contrastive Study Between English and Italian. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1-498-57928-5. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Fasold, Ralph; Connor-Linton, Jeffrey (2006). An Introduction to Language and Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-71766-4. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Feng, Guangwu (2010). A Theory of Conventional Implicature and Pragmatic Markers in Chinese. Brill. ISBN 978-1-849-50934-3. Retrieved 2024-02-18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Fernández, Maribel (2014). Programming Languages and Operational Semantics: A Concise Overview. Springer. ISBN 978-1-447-16368-8. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Fillmore, C. J. (2009). "Frame Semantics". In Allan, Keith (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-95969-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Fischer, Kerstin (2013). From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics: The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-110-82864-1. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Forster, Thomas (2003). Logic, Induction and Sets. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-53361-4. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Fraser, Chris (2020). "School of Names". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
  • Fraser, Chris (2023). Late Classical Chinese Thought. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-192-59168-5.
  • Fritzson, Peter (2010). Principles of Object-Oriented Modeling and Simulation with Modelica 2.1. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-93761-7. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Gamut, L. T. F. (1991). Logic, Language, and Meaning, Volume 1: Introduction to Logic. University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-28084-4. Retrieved 2024-02-09.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Gawron, Jean-Mark (2011). "29. Frame Semantics". Semantics. De Gruyter Mouton. ISBN 978-3-110-22661-4. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Geeraerts, Dirk (2010). Theories of Lexical Semantics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-198-70030-2. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Geeraerts, Dirk (2017). "Lexical Semantics". Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-38465-5. from the original on 2024-02-15. Retrieved 2024-02-15.
  • Gibbs, Raymond W. (1994). The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-42992-4. Retrieved 2024-02-18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Glock, Hans-Johann (2012). "What Is a Theory of Meaning? Just When You Thought Conceptual Analysis Was Dead...". Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure (65): 51–79. ISSN 0068-516X. JSTOR 24324915.
  • Gregory, Howard (2016). Semantics. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-21610-4.
  • Gregory, Paul A. (2017). Formal Logic. Broadview Press. ISBN 978-1-77048-594-5. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Griffiths, Patrick; Cummins, Chris (2023). An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics (3rd ed.). Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-1-399-50460-7.
  • Grimm, Stephan (2009). "Knowledge Representation and Ontologies". In Gaber, Mohamed Medhat (ed.). Scientific Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery: Principles and Foundations. Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-02788-8. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Groenendijk, J.; Stokhof, M. (2009). "Dynamic Semantics". In Allan, Keith (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-95969-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Gross, Steven (2016). "(Descriptive) Externalism in Semantics". In Riemer, Nick (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-66173-7.
  • Gupta, Anil (2011). "An Argument Against Tarski's Convention T". In Schantz, Richard (ed.). What Is Truth?. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-110-88666-5. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Halpern, Diane F.; Voĭskunskiĭ, Aleksandr (1997). States of Mind: American and Post-Soviet Perspectives on Contemporary Issues in Psychology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-510351-9. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Hampton, James A. (2015). "7. Categories, Prototypes, and Exemplars". In Riemer, Nick (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-41245-8. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Harris, Daniel W. (2017). "The History and Prehistory of Natural-Language Semantics". Innovations in the History of Analytical Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 149–194. doi:10.1057/978-1-137-40808-2_6. ISBN 978-1-137-40808-2. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Heffer, Simon (2014). Simply English: An A-Z of Avoidable Errors. Random House. ISBN 978-1-446-47380-1.
  • Hess, Leopold (2022). "Inferentialist Semantics for Lexicalized Social Meanings". Synthese. 200 (5). doi:10.1007/s11229-022-03817-5.
  • Hoad, T. F. (1993). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-192-83098-2.
  • Holm, P.; Karlgren, K. (1995). "Theories of Meaning and Different Perspectives on Information Systems". Information System Concepts: Towards a Consolidation of Views. Springer US. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-34870-4_3. ISBN 978-0-387-34870-4. from the original on 2024-02-16. Retrieved 2024-02-18.
  • Hörmann, Hans (2013). Psycholinguistics: An Introduction to Research and Theory. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-461-26211-4. Retrieved 2024-02-24.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Indraccolo, Lisa (2020). "Argumentation (Bian 辯)". In Fung, Yiu-ming (ed.). Dao Companion to Chinese Philosophy of Logic. Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy. Vol. 12. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-29033-7.
  • Jaakko, Hintikka; Sandu, Gabriel (2006). "What Is Logic?". Philosophy of Logic. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-46663-7. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Jackendoff, Ray (2013). "Constructions in the Parallel Architecture". In Hoffmann, Thomas; Trousdale, Graeme (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-37663-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Jackendoff, Ray (2011). "30. Conceptual Semantics". Semantics. De Gruyter Mouton. doi:10.1515/9783110226614.688. ISBN 978-3-110-22661-4.
  • Jackendoff, Ray (2002). Foundations of Language: Brain, Meaning, Grammar, Evolution. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-198-27012-6.
  • Jacobson, Pauline I. (2014). Compositional Semantics: An Introduction to the Syntax/Semantics Interface. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-199-67714-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Jansana, Ramon (2022). "Algebraic Propositional Logic". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. from the original on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 19 February 2024.
  • Janssen, Theo M. V.; Zimmermann, Thomas Ede (2021). "Montague Semantics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. from the original on 16 April 2021. Retrieved 12 February 2024.
  • Jiang, Yan (2016). "Deixis and Anaphora". A Reference Grammar of Chinese. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-76939-6. Retrieved 2024-02-24.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Johnstone, P. T. (1987). Notes on Logic and Set Theory. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-33692-5. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Jun, J. S. (2009). "Lexical Conceptual Structure". In Allan, Keith (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-95969-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Kay, Christian (2015). English Historical Semantics. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-748-64479-7. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Kearns, Kate (2011). Semantics. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-333-71701-1.
  • King, Jeffrey C. (2006). "Semantics". In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 8: Price - Sextus Empiricus (2nd ed.). Thomson Gale, Macmillan Reference. ISBN 978-0-028-65788-2.
  • Kortmann, Bernd (2020). English Linguistics: Essentials. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-476-05678-8. Retrieved 2024-02-25.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Kretzmann, Norman (2006). "Semantics, History of". In Borchert, Donald M. (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 8: Price - Sextus Empiricus (2nd ed.). Thomson Gale, Macmillan Reference. ISBN 978-0-028-65788-2.
  • Krifka, Manfred (2001). "Compositionality". In Wilson, Robert A.; Keil, Frank C. (eds.). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (MITECS). MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-73144-7. Retrieved 2024-02-09.
  • Kuche, Louise; Rowland, Susan (2023). "Rhetoric, Influence, and Persuation". In Rowland, Susan; Kuchel, Louise (eds.). Teaching Science Students to Communicate: A Practical Guide. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-91628-2. Retrieved 2024-02-24.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • L'Homme, Marie-Claude (2020). Lexical Semantics for Terminology: An Introduction. John Benjamins. ISBN 978-9-027-26178-6. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Leach, Stephen; Tartaglia, James (2018). "Postscript: The Blue Flower". The Meaning of Life and the Great Philosophers. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-315-38592-1.
  • Leaman, Oliver (2015). The Biographical Encyclopedia of Islamic Philosophy. Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-472-56945-5. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Lepore, E. (2009). "Truth Conditional Semantics and Meaning". In Allan, Keith (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-95969-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Lepore, Ernest; Ludwig, Kirk (2009). Donald Davidson's Truth-Theoretic Semantics. Clarendon. ISBN 978-0-191-53749-3. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Lewis, David (2012). "General Semantics". In Davidson, Donald; Harman, Gilbert (eds.). Semantics of Natural Language. Springer. ISBN 978-9-401-02557-7. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Li, Fuyin (2021). "Cognitive Semantics". Oxford Bibliographies. from the original on 25 March 2023. Retrieved 10 February 2024.
  • Löbner, Sebastian (2013). Understanding Semantics (2nd ed.). Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-82673-0.
  • Lyons, John (1996). Semantics 1 (Repr. ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-21473-5.
  • Magnus, P. D.; Button, Tim; Thomas-Bolduc, Aaron; Zach, Richard; Loftis, J. Robert; Trueman, Robert (2021). Forall X: Calgary: An Introduction to Formal Logic (PDF). University of Calgary. ISBN 979-8-527-34950-4. (PDF) from the original on 16 February 2023. Retrieved 27 March 2023.
  • Malpas, Jeff (2014). "Introduction: Hermeneutics and Philosophy". In Malpas, Jeff; Gander, Hans-Helmuth (eds.). The Routledge Companion to Hermeneutics. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-67664-5. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Márquez, Miguel Fuster (2011). Working with Words: An Introduction to English Linguistics. Universitat de València. ISBN 978-8-437-08579-1. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Marti, Genoveva (1998). "Sense and Reference". Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780415249126-X038-1. ISBN 978-0-415-25069-6. Retrieved 2024-02-09.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Martin, R. M. (1953). "On the Semantics of Hobbes". Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 14 (2): 205–211. JSTOR 2103327.
  • Meier-Oeser, Stephan (2019). "8. Meaning in Pre-19th Century Thought". Foundations, History, and Methods. De Gruyter Mouton. ISBN 978-3-110-37373-8.
  • Meulen, Alice ter (2008). "Philosophy of Language and Linguistics". In Dascal, Marcelo; Gerhardus, Dietfried; Lorenz, Kuno; Meggle, Georg (eds.). Sprachphilosophie [Philosophy of Language] (in German). Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-110-20329-5. Retrieved 2024-02-24.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Moeschler, Jacques (2007). "Introduction to Semantics". In Rajman, Martin (ed.). Speech and Language Engineering. EPFL Press. ISBN 978-0-824-72219-7. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Morris, Kevin; Preti, Consuelo (2023). Early Analytic Philosophy: An Inclusive Reader with Commentary. Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-350-32361-2. Retrieved 2024-02-18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Mosses, Peter D. (2003). "The Varieties of Programming Language Semantics (And Their Uses)". In Bjørner, Dines; Broy, Manfred; Zamulin, Alexandre (eds.). Perspectives of System Informatics: 4th International Andrei Ershov Memorial Conference, PSI 2001, Akademgorodok, Novosibirsk, Russia, July 2-6, 2001, Revised Papers. Springer. ISBN 978-3-540-45575-2. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Murphy, M. L.; Koskela, Anu (2010). Key Terms in Semantics. A&C Black. ISBN 978-1-847-06276-5. Retrieved 2024-02-09.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Murphy, M. L. (2009). "Antonymy and Incompatibility". In Allan, Keith (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-95969-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Mushayabasa, Godwin (2014). Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Ezekiel 1-24: A Frame Semantics Approach. Brill. ISBN 978-9-004-27443-3. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Nerlich, Brigitte (2019). "9. The Emergence of Linguistic Semantics in the 19th and Early 20th Century". Foundations, History, and Methods. De Gruyter Mouton. ISBN 978-3-110-37373-8.
  • Nerlich, Brigitte (1992). Semantic Theories in Europe, 1830–1930: From Etymology to Contextuality. John Benjamins. ISBN 978-9-027-27726-8. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Noth, Winfried (1990). Handbook of Semiotics. Indiana University Press. ISBN 978-0-253-20959-7. Retrieved 2024-02-09.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Nouwen, Rick; Brasoveanu, Adrian; van Eijck, Jan; Visser, Albert (2022). "Dynamic Semantics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. from the original on 25 February 2024. Retrieved 13 February 2024.
  • Olkowski, Dorothea; Pirovolakis, Eftichis (2019). Deleuze and Guattari's Philosophy of Freedom: Freedom's Refrains. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-66352-9. Retrieved 2024-02-09.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Östman, Jan-Ola; Fried, Mirjam (2005). Construction Grammars: Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions. John Benjamins. ISBN 978-9-027-21823-0. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • O’Regan, Gerard (2020). Mathematics in Computing: An Accessible Guide to Historical, Foundational and Application Contexts. Springer Nature. ISBN 978-3-030-34209-8. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Palmer, Frank Robert (1976). Semantics: A New Outline. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-20927-4.
  • Park-Johnson, Sunny K.; Shin, Sarah J. (2020). Linguistics for Language Teachers: Lessons for Classroom Practice. Routledge, Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-138-68182-8.
  • Partee, Barbara (1997). "Opacity and Scope". In Ludlow, Peter (ed.). Readings in the Philosophy of Language. MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-62114-4. Retrieved 2024-02-24.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Pavel, Thomas G. (1986). Fictional Worlds. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-29966-5. Retrieved 2024-02-18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Pearce, Kenneth L. (2022). "Berkeley's Theory of Language". The Oxford Handbook of Berkeley. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-190-87342-4. Retrieved 2024-02-18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Peeters, Bert (2006). Semantic Primes and Universal Grammar: Empirical Evidence from the Romance Languages. John Benjamins. ISBN 978-9-027-23091-1. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Pelletier, Francis Jeffry (1994). "The Principle of Semantic Compositionality". Topoi. 13 (1): 11–24. doi:10.1007/BF00763644.
  • Pollock, John L. (2017). The Foundations of Philosophical Semantics. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-400-88646-3. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Portner, Paul H.; Partee, Barbara H. (2008). Formal Semantics: The Essential Readings. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-470-75818-2. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Provenzola, Thomas (2013). "Abelard, Peter". In Hindson, Edward E.; Mitchell, Daniel R. (eds.). The Popular Encyclopedia of Church History: The People, Places, and Events That Shaped Christianity. Harvest House. ISBN 978-0-736-94807-4. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Pustejovsky, J. (2009). "Lexical Semantics". In Allan, Keith (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-95969-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Pustejovsky, J. (2006). "Lexical Semantics: Overview". Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (2nd ed.). Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-44854-1. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Reif, Monika; Polzenhagen, Frank (2023). Cultural Linguistics and Critical Discourse Studies. John Benjamins. ISBN 978-9-027-24952-4. Retrieved 2024-02-09.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Riemer, Nick (2010). Introducing Semantics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-85192-3. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Riemer, Nick (2016). "Internalist Semantics: Meaning, Conceptualization and Expression". In Riemer, Nick (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-66173-7.
  • Rooij, Robert van (2012). "Meaning and Use". In Kempson, Ruth M.; Fernando, Tim; Asher, Nicholas (eds.). Philosophy of Linguistics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-444-51747-0. Retrieved 2024-02-18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Rowe, Bruce M.; Levine, Diane P. (2015). A Concise Introduction to Linguistics. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-34928-0. Retrieved 2024-02-24.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Saeed, John I. (2009). Semantics (3rd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-1-405-15639-4.
  • Sanford, A. J. (2009). "Psychology, Semantics in". In Allan, Keith (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-95969-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Shapiro, Stewart; Kouri Kissel, Teresa (2024). "Classical Logic". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. from the original on 3 May 1998. Retrieved 19 February 2024.
  • Shead, Stephen (2011). Radical Frame Semantics and Biblical Hebrew: Exploring Lexical Semantics. Brill. ISBN 978-9-004-22218-2. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Shi, Zhongzhi (2017). Mind Computation. World Scientific. ISBN 978-981-314-582-5. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Smith, Edward E.; Rips, Lance J.; Shoben, Edward J. (1975). "Semantic Memory and Psychological Semantics". In Bower, Gordon H. (ed.). The Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Academic Press. ISBN 978-0-080-86359-7. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Speaks, Jeff (2021). "Theories of Meaning". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. from the original on 26 September 2019. Retrieved 10 February 2024.
  • Staal, J. F. (1966). "Indian Semantics, I". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 86 (3): 304–311. ISSN 0003-0279. JSTOR 597038.
  • Steinfatt, Thomas M. (2009). "General Semantics". In Littlejohn, Stephen W.; Foss, Karen A. (eds.). Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Sage. ISBN 978-1-412-95937-7. Retrieved 2024-02-24.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Strauven, Wanda (2018). "Marinetti's Tattilismo Revisited". In Catanese, Rossella (ed.). Futurist Cinema: Studies on Italian Avant-garde Film. Amsterdam University Press. ISBN 978-9-048-52523-2. Retrieved 2024-02-18.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Sun, Zhenbin (2014). Language, Discourse, and Praxis in Ancient China. Springer. ISBN 978-3-642-54865-9.
  • Szabó, Zoltán Gendler (2020). "Compositionality". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. from the original on 25 February 2024. Retrieved 7 February 2024.
  • Taylor, J. R. (2009). "Cognitive Semantics". In Allan, Keith (ed.). Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-080-95969-6. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Taylor, J. R. (2013). "Cognitive Semantics and Structural Semantics". In Blank, Andreas; Koch, Peter (eds.). Historical Semantics and Cognition. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-110-80419-5. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Taylor, John R. (2017). "Lexical Semantics". The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-54420-8. from the original on 2024-02-15. Retrieved 2024-02-15.
  • Tondl, L. (2012). Problems of Semantics: A Contribution to the Analysis of the Language Science. Springer. ISBN 978-9-400-98364-9. Retrieved 2024-02-09.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Trips, Carola (2009). Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology: The Development of -hood, -dom and -ship in the History of English. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-484-30527-4. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Tulving, Endel (2001). "Episodic Vs. Semantic Memory". In Wilson, Robert A.; Keil, Frank C. (eds.). The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (MITECS). MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-73144-7. Retrieved 2024-02-19.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Valin, Robert D. Van (2008). Investigations of the Syntax-semantics-pragmatics Interface. John Benjamins. ISBN 978-9-027-20572-8. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Vámos, Tibor (2019). "3. Knowledge Representation". In Liebowitz, Jay (ed.). The Handbook of Applied Expert Systems. CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-429-60697-7. Retrieved 2024-02-23.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Whiting, Daniel. "Conceptual Role Semantics". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. from the original on 17 February 2024. Retrieved 17 February 2024.
  • Wierzbicka, Anna (1988). The Semantics of Grammar. John Benjamins. ISBN 978-9-027-23019-5. Retrieved 2024-02-15.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Williams, Noel (1997). "The Semantics of the Word Fairy: Making Meaning Out of Thin Air". In Narváez, Peter (ed.). The Good People: New Fairylore Essays. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 978-0-813-10939-8. Retrieved 2024-02-10.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Yule, George (2010). The Study of Language (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-76527-5.
  • Zaefferer, D. (2019). "Introduction: Universals and Semantics". In Zaefferer, D. (ed.). Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics. Walter de Gruyter. ISBN 978-3-110-87052-7. Retrieved 2024-02-04.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  • Zalta, Edward N. (2022). "Gottlob Frege". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. from the original on 25 February 2024. Retrieved 9 February 2024.
  • Zhao, Ming (2023). "Preface". Cultural Semantics in the Lexicon of Modern Chinese. Brill. ISBN 978-9-004-53518-3. from the original on 2024-02-15. Retrieved 2024-02-15.

External links edit

 
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Semantics.
 
Look up semantics in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
 
Wikibooks has a book on the topic of: Linguistics/Semantics

April 11, 2024
semantics, other, uses, disambiguation, study, linguistic, meaning, examines, what, meaning, words, their, meaning, meaning, complex, expression, depends, parts, part, this, process, involves, distinction, between, sense, reference, sense, given, ideas, concep. For other uses see Semantics disambiguation Semantics is the study of linguistic meaning It examines what meaning is how words get their meaning and how the meaning of a complex expression depends on its parts Part of this process involves the distinction between sense and reference Sense is given by the ideas and concepts associated with an expression while reference is the object to which an expression points Semantics contrasts with syntax which studies the rules that dictate how to create grammatically correct sentences and pragmatics which investigates how people use language in communication A central topic in semantics concerns the relation between language world and mental concepts Lexical semantics is the branch of semantics that studies word meaning It examines whether words have one or several meanings and in what lexical relations they stand to one another Phrasal semantics studies the meaning of sentences by exploring the phenomenon of compositionality or how new meanings can be created by arranging words Formal semantics relies on logic and mathematics to provide precise frameworks of the relation between language and meaning Cognitive semantics examines meaning from a psychological perspective and assumes a close relation between language ability and the conceptual structures used to understand the world Other branches of semantics include conceptual semantics computational semantics and cultural semantics Theories of meaning are general explanations of the nature of meaning and how expressions are endowed with it According to referential theories the meaning of an expression is the part of reality to which it points Ideational theories identify meaning with mental states like the ideas that an expression evokes in the minds of language users According to causal theories meaning is determined by causes and effects which behaviorist semantics analyzes in terms of stimulus and response Further theories of meaning include truth conditional semantics verificationist theories the use theory and inferentialist semantics The study of semantic phenomena began during antiquity but was not recognized as an independent field of inquiry until the 19th century Semantics is relevant to the fields of formal logic computer science and psychology Contents 1 Definition and related fields 2 Basic concepts 2 1 Meaning 2 2 Sense and reference 2 3 Compositionality 2 4 Truth and truth conditions 2 5 Semiotic triangle 2 6 Others 3 Branches 3 1 Lexical semantics 3 2 Phrasal semantics 3 3 Formal semantics 3 4 Cognitive semantics 3 5 Others 4 Theories of meaning 4 1 Referential 4 2 Ideational 4 3 Causal 4 4 Others 5 History 6 In various disciplines 6 1 Logic 6 2 Computer science 6 3 Psychology 7 See also 8 References 8 1 Notes 8 2 Citations 8 3 Sources 9 External linksDefinition and related fields editSemantics is the study of meaning in languages 1 It is a systematic inquiry that examines what linguistic meaning is and how it arises 2 It investigates how expressions are built up from different layers of constituents like morphemes words clauses sentences and texts and how the meanings of the constituents affect one another 3 Semantics can focus on a specific language like English but in its widest sense it investigates meaning structures relevant to all languages 4 a b As a descriptive discipline it aims to determine how meaning works without prescribing what meaning people should associate with particular expressions 7 Some of its key questions are How do the meanings of words combine to create the meanings of sentences How do meanings relate to the minds of language users and to the things words refer to and What is the connection between what a word means and the contexts in which it is used 8 The main disciplines engaged in semantics are linguistics semiotics and philosophy 9 Besides its meaning as a field of inquiry semantics can also refer to theories within this field like truth conditional semantics 10 and to the meaning of particular expressions like the semantics of the word fairy 11 As a field of inquiry semantics has both an internal and an external side The internal side is interested in the connection between words and the mental phenomena they evoke like ideas and conceptual representations The external side examines how words refer to objects in the world and under what conditions a sentence is true 12 Many related disciplines investigate language and meaning Semantics contrasts with other subfields of linguistics focused on distinct aspects of language Phonology studies the different types of sounds used in languages and how sounds are connected to form words while syntax examines the rules that dictate how to arrange words to create sentences These divisions are reflected in the fact that it is possible to master some aspects of a language while lacking others like when a person knows how to pronounce a word without knowing its meaning 13 As a subfield of semiotics semantics has a more narrow focus on meaning in language while semiotics studies both linguistic and non linguistic signs Semiotics investigates additional topics like the meaning of non verbal communication conventional symbols and natural signs independent of human interaction Examples include nodding to signal agreement stripes on a uniform signifying rank and the presence of vultures indicating a nearby animal carcass 14 Semantics further contrasts with pragmatics which is interested in how people use language in communication 15 An expression like That s what I m talking about can mean many things depending on who says it and in what situation Semantics is interested in the possible meanings of expressions what they can and cannot mean in general In this regard it is sometimes defined as the study of context independent meaning Pragmatics examines which of these possible meanings is relevant in a particular case In contrast to semantics it is interested in actual performance rather than in the general linguistic competence underlying this performance 16 This includes the topic of additional meaning that can be inferred even though it is not literally expressed like what it means if a speaker remains silent on a certain topic 17 A closely related distinction by the semiotician Charles W Morris holds that semantics studies the relation between words and the world pragmatics examines the relation between words and users and syntax focuses on the relation between different words 18 Semantics is related to etymology which studies how words and their meanings changed in the course of history 7 Another connected field is hermeneutics which is the art or science of interpretation and is concerned with the right methodology of interpreting text in general and scripture in particular 19 Metasemantics examines the metaphysical foundations of meaning and aims to explain where it comes from or how it arises 20 The word semantics originated from the Ancient Greek adjective semantikos meaning relating to signs which is a derivative of semeion the noun for sign It was initially used for medical symptoms and only later acquired its wider meaning regarding any type of sign including linguistic signs The word semantics entered the English language from the French term semantique which the linguist Michel Breal first introduced at the end of the 19th century 21 Basic concepts editMeaning edit Semantics studies meaning in language which is limited to the meaning of linguistic expressions It concerns how signs are interpreted and what information they contain An example is the meaning of words provided in dictionary definitions by giving synonymous expressions or paraphrases like defining the meaning of the term ram as adult male sheep 22 There are many forms of non linguistic meaning that are not examined by semantics Actions and policies can have meaning in relation to the goal they serve Fields like religion and spirituality are interested in the meaning of life which is about finding a purpose in life or the significance of existence in general 23 nbsp Semantics is not focused on subjective speaker meaning and is instead interested in public meaning like the meaning found in general dictionary definitions Linguistic meaning can be analyzed on different levels Word meaning is studied by lexical semantics and investigates the denotation of individual words It is often related to concepts of entities like how the word dog is associated with the concept of the four legged domestic animal Sentence meaning falls into the field of phrasal semantics and concerns the denotation of full sentences It usually expresses a concept applying to a type of situation as in the sentence the dog has ruined my blue skirt 24 The meaning of a sentence is often referred to as a proposition 25 Different sentences can express the same proposition like the English sentence the tree is green and the German sentence der Baum ist grun 26 Utterance meaning is studied by pragmatics and is about the meaning of an expression on a particular occasion Sentence meaning and utterance meaning come apart in cases where expressions are used in a non literal way as is often the case with irony 27 Semantics is primarily interested in the public meaning that expressions have like the meaning found in general dictionary definitions Speaker meaning by contrast is the private or subjective meaning that individuals associate with expressions It can diverge from the literal meaning like when a person associates the word needle with pain or drugs 28 Sense and reference edit nbsp The distinction between sense and reference was first introduced by the philosopher Gottlob Frege 29 Meaning is often analyzed in terms of sense and reference 30 also referred to as intension and extension or connotation and denotation 31 The referent of an expression is the object to which the expression points The sense of an expression is the way in which it refers to that object or how the object is interpreted For example the expressions morning star and evening star refer to the same planet just like the expressions 2 2 and 3 1 refer to the same number The meanings of these expressions differ not on the level of reference but on the level of sense 32 Sense is sometimes understood as a mental phenomenon that helps people identify the objects to which an expression refers 33 Some semanticists focus primarily on sense or primarily on reference in their analysis of meaning 34 To grasp the full meaning of an expression it is usually necessary to understand both to what entities in the world it refers and how it describes them 35 The distinction between sense and reference can explain identity statements which can be used to show how two expressions with a different sense have the same referent For instance the sentence the morning star is the evening star is informative and people can learn something from it The sentence the morning star is the morning star by contrast is an uninformative tautology since the expressions are identical not only on the level of reference but also on the level of sense 36 Compositionality edit Compositionality is a key aspect of how languages construct meaning It is the idea that the meaning of a complex expression is a function of the meanings of its parts It is possible to understand the meaning of the sentence Zuzana owns a dog by understanding what the words Zuzana owns a and dog mean and how they are combined 37 In this regard the meaning of complex expressions like sentences is different from word meaning since it is normally not possible to deduce what a word means by looking at its letters and one needs to consult a dictionary instead 38 Compositionality is often used to explain how people can formulate and understand an almost infinite number of meanings even though the amount of words and cognitive resources is finite Many sentences that people read are sentences that they have never seen before and they are nonetheless able to understand them 37 When interpreted in a strong sense the principle of compositionality states that the meaning of a complex expression is not just affected by its parts and how they are combined but fully determined this way It is controversial whether this claim is correct or whether additional aspects influence meaning For example context may affect the meaning of expressions idioms like kick the bucket carry figurative or non literal meanings that are not directly reducible to the meanings of their parts 37 Truth and truth conditions edit Truth is a property of statements that accurately present the world and true statements are in accord with reality Whether a statement is true usually depends on the relation between the statement and the rest of the world The truth conditions of a statement are the way the world needs to be for the statement to be true For example it belongs to the truth conditions of the sentence it is raining outside that raindrops are falling from the sky The sentence is true if it is used in a situation in which the truth conditions are fulfilled i e if there is actually rain outside 39 Truth conditions play a central role in semantics and some theories rely exclusively on truth conditions to analyze meaning To understand a statement usually implies that one has an idea about the conditions under which it would be true This can happen even if one does not know whether the conditions are fulfilled 39 Semiotic triangle edit nbsp The semiotic triangle aims to explain how the relation between language Symbol and world Referent is mediated by the language users Thought or Reference The semiotic triangle also called the triangle of meaning is a model used to explain the relation between language language users and the world represented in the model as Symbol Thought or Reference and Referent The symbol is a linguistic signifier either in its spoken or written form The central idea of the model is that there is no direct relation between a linguistic expression and what it refers to as was assumed by earlier dyadic models This is expressed in the diagram by the dotted line between symbol and referent 40 The model holds instead that the relation between the two is mediated through a third component For example the term apple stands for a type of fruit but there is no direct connection between this string of letters and the corresponding physical object The relation is only established indirectly through the mind of the language user When they see the symbol it evokes a mental image or a concept which establishes the connection to the physical object This process is only possible if the language user learned the meaning of the symbol before The meaning of a specific symbol is governed by the conventions of a particular language The same symbol may refer to one object in one language to another object in a different language and to no object in another language 40 Others edit Many other concepts are used to describe semantic phenomena The semantic role of an expression is the function it fulfills in a sentence In the sentence the boy kicked the ball the boy has the role of the agent who performs an action The ball is the theme or patient of this action as something that does not act itself but is involved in or affected by the action The same entity can be both agent and patient like when someone cuts themselves An entity has the semantic role of an instrument if it is used to perform the action for instance when cutting something with a knife then the knife is the instrument For some sentences no action is described but an experience takes place like when a girl sees a bird In this case the girl has the role of the experiencer Other common semantic roles are location source goal beneficiary and stimulus 41 Lexical relations describe how words stand to one another Two words are synonyms if they share the same or a very similar meaning like car and automobile or buy and purchase Antonyms have opposite meanings such as the contrast between alive and dead or fast and slow c One term is a hyponym of another term if the meaning of the first term is included in the meaning of the second term For example ant is a hyponym of insect A prototype is a hyponym that has characteristic features of the type it belongs to A robin is a prototype of a bird but a penguin is not Two words with the same pronunciation are homophones like flour and flower while two words with the same spelling are homonyms like a bank of a river in contrast to a bank as a financial institution d Hyponymy is closely related to meronymy which describes the relation between part and whole For instance wheel is a meronym of car 44 An expression is ambiguous if it has more than one possible meaning In some cases it is possible to disambiguate them to discern the intended meaning 45 The term polysemy is used if the different meanings are closely related to one another like the meanings of the word head which can refer to the topmost part of the human body or the top ranking person in an organization 44 The meaning of words can often be subdivided into meaning components called semantic features The word horse has the semantic feature animate but lacks the semantic feature human It may not always be possible to fully reconstruct the meaning of a word by identifying all its semantic features 46 A semantic or lexical field is a group of words that are all related to the same activity or subject For instance the semantic field of cooking includes words like bake boil spice and pan 47 The context of an expression refers to the situation or circumstances in which it is used and includes time location speaker and audience It also encompasses other passages in a text that come before and after it 48 Context affects the meaning of various expressions like the deictic expression here and the anaphoric expression she 49 A syntactic environment is extensional or transparent if it is always possible to exchange expressions with the same reference without affecting the truth value of the sentence For example the environment of the sentence the number 8 is even is extensional because replacing the expression the number 8 with the number of planets in the solar system does not change its truth value For intensional or opaque contexts this type of substitution is not always possible For instance the embedded clause in Paco believes that the number 8 is even is intensional since Paco may not know that the number of planets in the solar system is 8 50 Semanticists commonly distinguish the language they study called object language from the language they use to express their findings called metalanguage When a professor uses Japanese to teach their student how to interpret the language of first order logic then the language of first order logic is the object language and Japanese is the metalanguage The same language may occupy the role of object language and metalanguage at the same time This is the case in monolingual English dictionaries in which both the entry term belonging to the object language and the definition text belonging to the metalanguage are taken from the English language 51 Branches editLexical semantics edit Main article Lexical semantics Lexical semantics is the sub field of semantics that studies word meaning 52 It examines semantic aspects of individual words and the vocabulary as a whole This includes the study of lexical relations between words such as whether two terms are synonyms or antonyms 53 Lexical semantics categorizes words based on semantic features they share and groups them into semantic fields unified by a common subject 54 This information is used to create taxonomies to organize lexical knowledge for example by distinguishing between physical and abstract entities and subdividing physical entities into stuff and individuated entities 55 Further topics of interest are polysemy ambiguity and vagueness 56 Lexical semantics is sometimes divided into two complementary approaches semasiology and onomasiology Semasiology starts from words and examines what their meaning is It is interested in whether words have one or several meanings and how those meanings are related to one another Instead of going from word to meaning onomasiology goes from meaning to word It starts with a concept and examines what names this concept has or how it can be expressed in a particular language 57 Some semanticists also include the study of lexical units other than words in the field of lexical semantics Compound expressions like being under the weather have a non literal meaning that acts as a unit and is not a direct function of its parts Another topic concerns the meaning of morphemes that make up words for instance how negative prefixes like in and dis affect the meaning of the words they are part of as in inanimate and dishonest 58 Phrasal semantics edit Phrasal semantics studies the meaning of sentences It relies on the principle of compositionality to explore how the meaning of complex expressions arises from the combination of their parts 59 e The different parts can be analyzed as subject predicate or argument The subject of a sentence usually refers to a specific entity while the predicate describes a feature of the subject or an event in which the subject participates Arguments provide additional information to complete the predicate 61 For example in the sentence Mary hit the ball Mary is the subject hit is the predicate and the ball is an argument 61 A more fine grained categorization distinguishes between different semantic roles of words such as agent patient theme location source and goal 62 nbsp Parse trees like the constituency based parse tree show how expressions are combined to form sentences Verbs usually function as predicates and often help to establish connections between different expressions to form a more complex meaning structure In the expression Beethoven likes Schubert the verb like connects a liker to the object of their liking 63 Other sentence parts modify meaning rather than form new connections For instance the adjective red modifies the color of another entity in the expression red car 64 A further compositional device is variable binding which is used to determine the reference of a term For example the last part of the expression the woman who likes Beethoven specifies which woman is meant 65 Parse trees can be used to show the underlying hierarchy employed to combine the different parts 66 Various grammatical devices like the gerund form also contribute to meaning and are studied by grammatical semantics 67 Formal semantics edit Main article Formal semantics natural language Formal semantics uses formal tools from logic and mathematics to analyze meaning in natural languages f It aims to develop precise logical formalisms to clarify the relation between expressions and their denotation 69 One of its key tasks is to provide frameworks of how language represents the world for example using ontological models to show how linguistic expressions map to the entities of that model 69 A common idea is that words refer to individual objects or groups of objects while sentences relate to events and states Sentences are mapped to a truth value based on whether their description of the world is in correspondence with its ontological model 70 Formal semantics further examines how to use formal mechanisms to represent linguistic phenomena such as quantification intensionality noun phrases plurals mass terms tense and modality 71 Montague semantics is an early and influential theory in formal semantics that provides a detailed analysis of how the English language can be represented using mathematical logic It relies on higher order logic lambda calculus and type theory to show how meaning is created through the combination of expressions belonging to different syntactic categories 72 Dynamic semantics is a subfield of formal semantics that focuses on how information grows over time According to it meaning is context change potential the meaning of a sentence is not given by the information it contains but by the information change it brings about relative to a context 73 Cognitive semantics edit Main article Cognitive semantics nbsp Cognitive semantics is interested in the conceptual structures underlying language which can be articulated through the contrast between profile and base For instance the term hypotenuse profiles a straight line against the background of a right angled triangle Cognitive semantics studies the problem of meaning from a psychological perspective or how the mind of the language user affects meaning As a subdiscipline of cognitive linguistics it sees language as a wide cognitive ability that is closely related to the conceptual structures used to understand and represent the world 74 g Cognitive semanticists do not draw a sharp distinction between linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the world and see them instead as interrelated phenomena 76 They study how the interaction between language and human cognition affects the conceptual organization in very general domains like space time causation and action 77 The contrast between profile and base is sometimes used to articulate the underlying knowledge structure The profile of a linguistic expression is the aspect of the knowledge structure that it brings to the foreground while the base is the background that provides the context of this aspect without being at the center of attention 78 For example the profile of the word hypotenuse is a straight line while the base is a right angled triangle of which the hypotenuse forms a part 79 h Cognitive semantics further compares the conceptual patterns and linguistic typologies across languages and considers to what extent the cognitive conceptual structures of humans are universal or relative to their linguistic background 81 Another research topic concerns the psychological processes involved in the application of grammar 82 Other investigated phenomena include categorization which is understood as a cognitive heuristic to avoid information overload by regarding different entities in the same way 83 and embodiment which concerns how the language user s bodily experience affects the meaning of expressions 84 Frame semantics is an important subfield of cognitive semantics 85 Its central idea is that the meaning of terms cannot be understood in isolation from each other but needs to be analyzed on the background of the conceptual structures they depend on These structures are made explicit in terms of semantic frames For example words like bride groom and honeymoon evoke in the mind the frame of marriage 86 Others edit Conceptual semantics shares with cognitive semantics the idea of studying linguistic meaning from a psychological perspective by examining how humans conceptualize and experience the world It holds that meaning is not about the objects to which expressions refer but about the cognitive structure of human concepts that connect thought perception and action Conceptual semantics differs from cognitive semantics by introducing a strict distinction between meaning and syntax and by relying on various formal devices to explore the relation between meaning and cognition 87 Computational semantics examines how the meaning of natural language expressions can be represented and processed on computers 88 It often relies on the insights of formal semantics and applies them to problems that can be computationally solved 89 Some of its key problems include computing the meaning of complex expressions by analyzing their parts handling ambiguity vagueness and context dependence and using the extracted information in automatic reasoning 90 It forms part of computational linguistics artificial intelligence and cognitive science 88 Its applications include machine learning and machine translation 91 Cultural semantics studies the relation between linguistic meaning and culture It compares conceptual structures in different languages and is interested in how meanings evolve and change because of cultural phenomena associated with politics religion and customs 92 For example address practices encode cultural values and social hierarchies as in the difference of politeness of expressions like tu and usted in Spanish or du and Sie in German in contrast to English which lacks these distinctions and uses the pronoun you in either case 93 Closely related fields are intercultural semantics cross cultural semantics and comparative semantics 94 Pragmatic semantics studies how the meaning of an expression is shaped by the situation in which it is used It is based on the idea that communicative meaning is usually context sensitive and depends on who participates in the exchange what information they share and what their intentions and background assumptions are It focuses on communicative actions of which linguistic expressions only form one part Some theorists include these topics within the scope of semantics while others consider them part of the distinct discipline of pragmatics 95 Theories of meaning editTheories of meaning explain what meaning is what meaning an expression has and how the relation between expression and meaning is established 96 Referential edit nbsp Referential theories identify meaning with the entities to which expressions point Referential theories state that the meaning of an expression is the entity to which it points 97 The meaning of singular terms like names is the individual to which they refer For example the meaning of the name George Washington is the person with this name 98 General terms refer not to a single entity but to the set of objects to which this term applies In this regard the meaning of the term cat is the set of all cats 99 Similarly verbs usually refer to classes of actions or events and adjectives refer to properties of individuals and events 100 Simple referential theories face problems for meaningful expressions that have no clear referent Names like Pegasus and Santa Claus have meaning even though they do not point to existing entities 101 Other difficulties concern cases in which different expressions are about the same entity For instance the expressions Roger Bannister and the first man to run a four minute mile refer to the same person but do not mean exactly the same thing 102 This is particularly relevant when talking about beliefs since a person may understand both expressions without knowing that they point to the same entity 103 A further problem is given by expressions whose meaning depends on the context like the deictic terms here and I 104 To avoid these problems referential theories often introduce additional devices Some identify meaning not directly with objects but with functions that point to objects This additional level has the advantage of taking the context of an expression into account since the same expression may point to one object in one context and to another object in a different context For example the reference of the word here depends on the location in which it is used 105 A closely related approach is possible world semantics which allows expressions to refer not only to entities in the actual world but also to entities in other possible worlds i According to this view expressions like the first man to run a four minute mile refer to different persons in different worlds This view can also be used to analyze sentences that talk about what is possible or what is necessary possibility is what is true in some possible worlds while necessity is what is true in all possible worlds 107 Ideational edit nbsp Ideational theories identify meaning with the mental states of language users Ideational theories also called mentalist theories are not primarily interested in the reference of expressions and instead explain meaning in terms of the mental states of language users 108 One historically influential approach articulated by John Locke holds that expressions stand for ideas in the speaker s mind According to this view the meaning of the word dog is the idea that people have of dogs Language is seen as a medium used to transfer ideas from the speaker to the audience After having learned the same meaning of signs the speaker can produce a sign that corresponds to the idea in their mind and the perception of this sign evokes the same idea in the mind of the audience 109 A closely related theory focuses not directly on ideas but on intentions 110 This view is particularly associated with Paul Grice who observed that people usually communicate to cause some reaction in their audience He held that the meaning of an expression is given by the intended reaction This means that communication is not just about decoding what the speaker literally said but requires an understanding of their intention or why they said it 111 For example telling someone looking for petrol that there is a garage around the corner has the meaning that petrol can be obtained there because of the speaker s intention to help This goes beyond the literal meaning which has no explicit connection to petrol 112 Causal edit Causal theories hold that the meaning of an expression depends on the causes and effects it has 113 According to behaviorist semantics also referred to as stimulus response theory the meaning of an expression is given by the situation that prompts the speaker to use it and the response it provokes in the audience 114 For instance the meaning of yelling Fire is given by the presence of an uncontrolled fire and attempts to control it or seek safety 115 Behaviorist semantics relies on the idea that learning a language consists in adopting behavioral patterns in the form of stimulus response pairs 116 One of its key motivations is to avoid private mental entities and define meaning instead in terms of publicly observable language behavior 117 Another causal theory focuses on the meaning of names and holds that a naming event is required to establish the link between name and named entity This naming event acts as a form of baptism that establishes the first link of a causal chain in which all subsequent uses of the name participate 118 According to this view the name Plato refers to an ancient Greek philosopher because at some point he was originally named this way and people kept using this name to refer to him 119 This view was originally formulated by Saul Kripke to apply to names only but has been extended to cover other types of speech as well 120 Others edit Truth conditional semantics analyzes the meaning of sentences in terms of their truth conditions According to this view to understand a sentence means to know what the world needs to be like for the sentence to be true 121 Truth conditions can themselves be expressed through possible worlds For example the sentence Hillary Clinton won the 2016 American presidential election is false in the actual world but there are some possible worlds in which it is true 122 The extension of a sentence can be interpreted as its truth value while its intension is the set of all possible worlds in which it is true 123 Truth conditional semantics is closely related to verificationist theories which introduce the additional idea that there should be some kind of verification procedure to assess whether a sentence is true They state that the meaning of a sentence consists in the method to verify it or in the circumstances that justify it 124 For instance scientific claims often make predictions which can be used to confirm or disconfirm them using observation 125 According to verificationism sentences that can neither be verified nor falsified are meaningless 126 The use theory states that the meaning of an expression is given by the way it is utilized This view was first introduced by Ludwig Wittgenstein who understood language as a collection of language games The meaning of expressions depends on how they are used inside a game and the same expression may have different meanings in different games 127 Some versions of this theory identify meaning directly with patterns of regular use 128 Others focus on social norms and conventions by additionally taking into account whether a certain use is considered appropriate in a given society 129 Inferentialist semantics also called conceptual role semantics holds that the meaning of an expression is given by the role it plays in the premises and conclusions of good inferences 130 For example one can infer from x is a male sibling that x is a brother and one can infer from x is a brother that x has parents According to inferentialist semantics the meaning of the word brother is determined by these and all similar inferences that can be drawn 131 History editSemantics was established as an independent field of inquiry in the 19th century but the study of semantic phenomena began as early as the ancient period as part of philosophy and logic 132 j In ancient Greece Plato 427 347 BCE explored the relation between names and things in his dialogue Cratylus It considers the positions of naturalism which holds that things have their name by nature and conventionalism which states that names are related to their referents by customs and conventions among language users 134 The book On Interpretation by Aristotle 384 322 BCE introduced various conceptual distinctions that greatly influenced subsequent works in semantics He developed an early form of the semantic triangle by holding that spoken and written words evoke mental concepts which refer to external things by resembling them For him mental concepts are the same for all humans unlike the conventional words they associate with those concepts 135 The Stoics incorporated many of the insights of their predecessors to develop a complex theory of language through the perspective of logic They discerned different kinds of words by their semantic and syntactic roles such as the contrast between names common nouns and verbs They also discussed the difference between statements commands and prohibitions 136 nbsp Bhartṛhari developed and compared various semantic theories of the meaning of words 137 In ancient India the orthodox school of Nyaya held that all names refer to real objects It explored how words lead to an understanding of the thing meant and what consequence this relation has to the creation of knowledge 138 Philosophers of the orthodox school of Mimaṃsa discussed the relation between the meanings of individual words and full sentences while considering which one is more basic 139 The book Vakyapadiya by Bhartṛhari 4th 5th century CE distinguished between different types of words and considered how they can carry different meanings depending on how they are used 140 In ancient China the Mohists argued that names play a key role in making distinctions to guide moral behavior 141 They inspired the School of Names which explored the relation between names and entities while examining how names are required to identify and judge entities 142 nbsp One of Peter Abelard s innovations was his focus on the meaning of full sentences rather than the meaning of individual words In the Middle Ages Augustine of Hippo 354 430 developed a general conception of signs as entities that stand for other entities and convey them to the intellect He was the first to introduce the distinction between natural and linguistic signs as different types belonging to a common genus 143 Boethius 480 528 wrote a translation of and various comments on Aristotle s book On Interpretation which popularized its main ideas and inspired reflections on semantic phenomena in the scholastic tradition 144 An innovation in the semantics of Peter Abelard 1079 1142 was his interest in propositions or the meaning of sentences in contrast to the focus on the meaning of individual words by many of his predecessors He further explored the nature of universals which he understood as mere semantic phenomena of common names caused by mental abstractions that do not refer to any entities 145 In the Arabic tradition Ibn Faris 920 1004 identified meaning with the intention of the speaker while Abu Mansur al Azhari 895 980 held that meaning resides directly in speech and needs to be extracted through interpretation 146 An important topic towards the end of the Middle Ages was the distinction between categorematic and syncategorematic terms Categorematic terms have an independent meaning and refer to some part of reality like horse and Socrates Syncategorematic terms lack independent meaning and fulfill other semantic functions such as modifying or quantifying the meaning of other expressions like the words some not and necessarily 147 An early version of the causal theory of meaning was proposed by Roger Bacon c 1219 20 c 1292 who held that things get names similar to how people get names through some kind of initial baptism 148 His ideas inspired the tradition of the speculative grammarians who proposed that there are certain universal structures found in all languages They arrived at this conclusion by drawing an analogy between the modes of signification on the level of language the modes of understanding on the level of mind and the modes of being on the level of reality 149 In the early modern period Thomas Hobbes 1588 1679 distinguished between marks which people use privately to recall their own thoughts and signs which are used publicly to communicate their ideas to others 150 In their Port Royal Logic Antoine Arnauld 1612 1694 and Pierre Nicole 1625 1695 developed an early precursor of the distinction between intension and extension 151 The Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke 1632 1704 presented an influential version of the ideational theory of meaning according to which words stand for ideas and help people communicate by transferring ideas from one mind to another 152 Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz 1646 1716 understood language as the mirror of thought and tried to conceive the outlines of a universal formal language to express scientific and philosophical truths This attempt inspired theorists Christian Wolff 1679 1754 Georg Bernhard Bilfinger 1693 1750 and Johann Heinrich Lambert 1728 1777 to develop the idea of a general science of sign systems 153 Etienne Bonnot de Condillac 1715 1780 accepted and further developed Leibniz s idea of the linguistic nature of thought Against Locke he held that language is involved in the creation of ideas and is not merely a medium to communicate them 154 nbsp Michel Breal coined the French term semantique and conceptualized the scope of this field of inquiry In the 19th century semantics emerged and solidified as an independent field of inquiry Christian Karl Reisig 1792 1829 is sometimes credited as the father of semantics since he clarified its concept and scope while also making various contributions to its key ideas 155 Michel Breal 1832 1915 followed him in providing a broad conception of the field for which he coined the French term semantique 156 John Stuart Mill 1806 1873 gave great importance to the role of names to refer to things He distinguished between the connotation and denotation of names and held that propositions are formed by combining names 157 Charles Sanders Peirce 1839 1914 conceived semiotics as a general theory of signs with several subdisciplines which were later identified by Charles W Morris 1901 1979 as syntactics semantics and pragmatics In his pragmatist approach to semantics Peirce held that the meaning of conceptions consists in the entirety of their practical consequences 158 The philosophy of Gottlob Frege 1848 1925 contributed to semantics on many different levels Frege first introduced the distinction between sense and reference and his development of predicate logic and the principle of compositionality formed the foundation of many subsequent developments in formal semantics 159 Edmund Husserl 1859 1938 explored meaning from a phenomenological perspective by considering the mental acts that endow expressions with meaning He held that meaning always implies reference to an object and expressions that lack a referent like green is or are meaningless 160 In the 20th century Alfred Tarski 1901 1983 defined truth in formal languages through his semantic theory of truth which was influential in the development of truth conditional semantics by Donald Davidson 1917 2003 161 Tarski s student Richard Montague 1930 1971 formulated a complex formal framework of the semantics of the English language which was responsible for establishing formal semantics as a major area of research 162 According to structural semantics k which was inspired by the structuralist philosophy of Ferdinand de Saussure 1857 1913 language is a complex network of structural relations and the meanings of words are not fixed individually but depend on their position within this network 164 The theory of general semantics was developed by Alfred Korzybski 1879 1950 as an inquiry into how language represents reality and affects human thought 165 The contributions of George Lakoff 1941 present and Ronald Langacker 1942 present provided the foundation of cognitive semantics 166 Charles J Fillmore 1929 2014 developed frame semantics as a major approach in this area 167 The closely related field of conceptual semantics was inaugurated by Ray Jackendoff 1945 present 168 In various disciplines editLogic edit Main article Semantics of logic Logicians study correct reasoning and often develop formal languages to express arguments and assess their correctness 169 One part of this process is to provide a semantics for a formal language to precisely define what its terms mean A semantics of a formal language is a set of rules usually expressed as a mathematical function that assigns meanings to formal language expressions 170 For example the language of first order logic uses lowercase letters for individual constants and uppercase letters for predicates To express the sentence Bertie is a dog the formula D b displaystyle D b nbsp can be used where b displaystyle b nbsp is an individual constant for Bertie and D displaystyle D nbsp is a predicate for dog Classical model theoretic semantics assigns meaning to these terms by defining an interpretation function that maps individual constants to specific objects and predicates to sets of objects or tuples The function maps b displaystyle b nbsp to Bertie and D displaystyle D nbsp to the set of all dogs This way it is possible to calculate the truth value of the sentence it is true if Bertie is a member of the set of dogs and false otherwise 171 Formal logic aims to determine whether arguments are deductively valid that is whether the premises entail the conclusion 172 Entailment can be defined in terms of syntax or in terms of semantics Syntactic entailment expressed with the symbol displaystyle vdash nbsp relies on rules of inference which can be understood as procedures to transform premises and arrive at a conclusion These procedures only take the logical form of the premises on the level of syntax into account and ignore what meaning they express Semantic entailment expressed with the symbol displaystyle vDash nbsp looks at the meaning of the premises in particular at their truth value A conclusion follows semantically from a set of premises if the truth of the premises ensures the truth of the conclusion that is if any semantic interpretation function that assigns the premises the value true also assigns the conclusion the value true 173 Computer science edit Main article Semantics computer science In computer science the semantics of a program is how it behaves when a computer runs it Semantics contrasts with syntax which is the particular form in which instructions are expressed The same behavior can usually be described with different forms of syntax In JavaScript this is the case for the commands i 1 and i i 1 which are syntactically different expressions to increase the value of the variable i by one This difference is also reflected in different programming languages since they rely on different syntax but can usually be employed to create programs with the same behavior on the semantic level 174 Static semantics focuses on semantic aspects that affect the compilation of a program In particular it is concerned with detecting errors of syntactically correct programs such as type errors which arise when an operation receives an incompatible data type This is the case for instance if a function performing a numerical calculation is given a string instead of a number as an argument 175 Dynamic semantics focuses on the run time behavior of programs that is what happens during the execution of instructions 176 The main approaches to dynamic semantics are denotational axiomatic and operational semantics Denotational semantics relies on mathematical formalisms to describe the effects of each element of the code Axiomatic semantics uses deductive logic to analyze which conditions must be in place before and after the execution of a program Operational semantics interprets the execution of a program as a series of steps each involving the transition from one state to another state 177 Psychology edit Main article Semantics psychology Psychological semantics examines psychological aspects of meaning It is concerned with how meaning is represented on a cognitive level and what mental processes are involved in understanding and producing language It further investigates how meaning interacts with other mental processes such as the relation between language and perceptual experience 178 l Other issues concern how people learn new words and relate them to familiar things and concepts how they infer the meaning of compound expressions they have never heard before how they resolve ambiguous expressions and how semantic illusions lead them to misinterpret sentences 180 One key topic is semantic memory which is a form of general knowledge of meaning that includes the knowledge of language concepts and facts It contrasts with episodic memory which records events that a person experienced in their life The comprehension of language relies on semantic memory and the information it carries about word meanings 181 According to a common view word meanings are stored and processed in relation to their semantic features The feature comparison model states that sentences like a robin is a bird are assessed on a psychological level by comparing the semantic features of the word robin with the semantic features of the word bird The assessment process is fast if their semantic features are similar which is the case if the example is a prototype of the general category For atypical examples as in the sentence a penguin is a bird there is less overlap in the semantic features and the psychological process is significantly slower 182 See also editSemantic technology Technology to help machines understand dataReferences editNotes edit The study of meaning structures found in all languages is sometimes referred to as universal semantics 5 Semantics usually focuses on natural languages but it can also include the study of meaning in formal languages like the language of first order logic and programming languages 6 Antonym is an antonym of synonym 42 Some linguists use the term homonym for both phenomena 43 Some authors use the term compositional semantics for this type of inquiry 60 The term formal semantics is sometimes used in a different sense to refer to compositional semantics or to the study of meaning in the formal languages of systems of logic 68 Cognitive semantics does not accept the idea of linguistic relativity associated with the Sapir Whorf hypothesis and holds instead that the underlying cognitive processes responsible for conceptual structures are independent of the language one speaks 75 Other examples are the word island which profiles a landmass against the background of the surrounding water and the word uncle which profiles a human adult male against the background of kinship relations 80 A possible world is a complete way of how things could have been 106 The history of semantics is different from historical semantics which studies how the meanings of words change through time 133 Some theorists use the term structural semantics in a different sense to refer to phrasal semantics 163 Some theorists use the term psychosemantics to refer to this discipline while others understand the term in a different sense 179 Citations edit AHD Staff 2022Saeed 2009 p 4Crimmins 1998 Lead Section Saeed 2009 pp 4 5Crimmins 1998 Lead SectionKing 2006 p 735Riemer 2010 pp 2 3 Allan 2009 p xi Bezuidenhout 2009 p 875Jacobson 2014 p 4Zaefferer 2019 p 1 Zaefferer 2019 p 1 Lewis 2012 p 169Saeed 2009 pp 305 306 315 317Fernandez 2014 p 14 a b Griffiths amp Cummins 2023 p 12 Riemer 2010 p 2 Crimmins 1998 Lead SectionSaeed 2009 p 5Riemer 2010 pp 4 6 Carston 2011 p 280 Williams 1997 p 457 Gross 2016 pp 12 13Riemer 2016 pp 30 31 Saeed 2009 pp 4 5Jun 2009 p 463Jackendoff 2013 p 72 Saeed 2009 p 5Riemer 2010 pp 4 6 Griffiths amp Cummins 2023 p 1Bezuidenhout 2009 p 875 Griffiths amp Cummins 2023 pp 1 3 14Bezuidenhout 2009 p 875 Griffiths amp Cummins 2023 pp 12 13 Bezuidenhout 2009 p 875 Malpas 2014 Introduction Hermeneutics and PhilosophyAHD Staff 2022aVamos 2019 p 3 2 Anderson 2021 p 4Burgess amp Sherman 2014 pp 1 2 Riemer 2010 p 2Hoad 1993 p 428 Cunningham 2009 pp 530 531Yule 2010 pp 113 114 Leach amp Tartaglia 2018 pp 274 275Abaza 2023 p 32Cunningham 2009 p 526Lobner 2013 pp 1 2 Riemer 2010 pp 21 22Griffiths amp Cummins 2023 pp 5 6Lobner 2013 pp 1 6 18 21 Tondl 2012 p 111 Olkowski amp Pirovolakis 2019 pp 65 66 Riemer 2010 pp 21 22Griffiths amp Cummins 2023 pp 5 6Lobner 2013 pp 1 6Saeed 2009 pp 12 13 Yule 2010 p 113Griffiths amp Cummins 2023 pp 5 6 Zalta 2022 1 Frege s Life and Influences 3 Frege s Philosophy of Language Griffiths amp Cummins 2023 pp 7 9Cunningham 2009 p 526Saeed 2009 p 46 Cunningham 2009 p 527Griffiths amp Cummins 2023 pp 7 9 Cunningham 2009 p 526Griffiths amp Cummins 2023 pp 7 9 Marti 1998 Lead SectionRiemer 2010 pp 27 28 Riemer 2010 pp 25 28Griffiths amp Cummins 2023 pp 7 9 Cunningham 2009 p 531 Marti 1998 Lead Section a b c Szabo 2020 Lead SectionPelletier 1994 pp 11 12Krifka 2001 p 152 Lobner 2013 pp 7 8 10 12 a b Gregory 2016 pp 9 10Blackburn 2008 Truth ConditionsKearns 2011 pp 8 10 a b Palmer 1976 pp 25 26Noth 1990 pp 89 90Dirven amp Verspoor 2004 pp 28 29Riemer 2010 pp 13 16 Yule 2010 pp 115 116Saeed 2009 pp 152 155 Heffer 2014 p 42 Saeed 2009 p 63 a b Yule 2010 pp 116 120Saeed 2009 pp 63 70 Edmonds 2009 pp 223 226Murphy amp Koskela 2010 p 57 Yule 2010 pp 113 115 Saeed 2009 p 63Reif amp Polzenhagen 2023 pp 129 130 Meulen 2008 Philosophy of Language and LinguisticsKuche amp Rowland 2023 pp 13 14 Cornish 1999 pp 18 19Jiang 2016 Summary Blackburn 2008cPartee 1997 pp 833 834 Riemer 2010 pp 22 23Gamut 1991 pp 142 143Dummett 1981 p 106 Geeraerts 2017 Lead SectionTaylor 2017 pp 246 247Pustejovsky 2006 pp 98 100Pustejovsky 2009 p 476Marquez 2011 p 146 Geeraerts 2017 Lead Section 1 The Descriptive Scope of Lexical SemanticsPustejovsky 2009 p 476Marquez 2011 pp 146 147 Geeraerts 2017 Lead Section 1 3 Lexical Fields and Componential AnalysisYule 2010 pp 113 115 Pustejovsky 2009 p 479 Pustejovsky 2006 pp 98 100Geeraerts 2017 1 1 Polysemy and Vagueness Geeraerts 2017 1 The Descriptive Scope of Lexical SemanticsNoth 1990 p 106Taylor 2017 pp 246 247 L Homme 2020 pp 67 69Trips 2009 p 236Andreou 2015 Abstract Fasold amp Connor Linton 2006 pp 141 156Jackendoff 2002 p 378Park Johnson amp Shin 2020 pp 103 104Riemer 2010 p 21Bieswanger amp Becker 2017 p 128Jacobson 2014 p 5 Fasold amp Connor Linton 2006 p 156Bagha 2011 pp 1414 1415 a b Fasold amp Connor Linton 2006 pp 141 143 Fasold amp Connor Linton 2006 p 143Park Johnson amp Shin 2020 pp 103 104 Jackendoff 2002 pp 378 380 Jackendoff 2002 pp 382 383 Jackendoff 2002 pp 384 385 Valin 2008 p 466Berwick amp Stabler 2019 p 110 Wierzbicka 1988 p 3 Bohnemeyer 2021 p 24Pollock 2017 p 172 a b Geeraerts 2010 pp 118 119Moeschler 2007 pp 31 33Portner amp Partee 2008 pp 1 2 Moeschler 2007 pp 31 33 Portner amp Partee 2008 pp 3 8 10 35 127 324 Portner amp Partee 2008 pp 3 4Janssen amp Zimmermann 2021 Lead Section 1 Introduction 2 3 Logic and Translation Groenendijk amp Stokhof 2009 pp 272 273Nouwen et al 2022 Lead Section Li 2021Taylor 2009 pp 73 74Croft amp Cruse 2004 pp 1 3 Kortmann 2020 p 165 Taylor 2009 pp 73 74 Li 2021 Taylor 2009 pp 74 75Enfield 2002 p 152 Taylor 2009 pp 74 75Taylor 2013 pp 38 40 Taylor 2009 pp 74 75 Taylor 2009 p 85Li 2021 Li 2021Taylor 2009 pp 83 84 Taylor 2009 pp 76 77 Taylor 2009 p 82 Mushayabasa 2014 p 21Shead 2011 pp 34 35 Gawron 2011 pp 664 665 669Fillmore 2009 pp 330 332 Riemer 2010 pp 261 263Jackendoff 2011 p 688 a b Geeraerts 2010 p 118Bunt amp Muskens 1999 pp 1 2 Bunt amp Muskens 1999 pp 1 2 Geeraerts 2010 p 118Bunt amp Muskens 1999 pp 1 2Erk 2018 Summary Erk 2018 SummaryGeeraerts 2010 p 118 Zhao 2023 Preface Farese 2018 pp 1 3 Peeters 2006 p 25 Marquez 2011 p 149Bublitz amp Norrick 2011 pp 215 216 Speaks 2021 Lead SectionGlock 2012 pp 51 52Holm amp Karlgren 1995 pp 20 21Bagha 2011 pp 1414 1415 Glock 2012 p 51Holm amp Karlgren 1995 pp 21 22 Speaks 2021 2 1 1 The Theory of ReferenceHolm amp Karlgren 1995 pp 21 22Davis 2005 pp 209 210Gibbs 1994 pp 29 30 Davis 2005 pp 209 210 Gibbs 1994 pp 29 30 Davis 2005 p 211 Holm amp Karlgren 1995 pp 21 22Gibbs 1994 pp 29 30 Speaks 2021 2 1 2 Theories of Reference Vs Semantic Theories Speaks 2021 2 1 4 Character and Content Context and Circumstance Davis 2005 pp 209 210Holm amp Karlgren 1995 pp 21 22Speaks 2021 2 1 4 Character and Content Context and Circumstance Berto amp Jago 2023 Lead SectionPavel 1986 p 50 Speaks 2021 2 1 5 Possible Worlds SemanticsRooij 2012 pp 198 199Davis 2005 pp 209 210 Chapman amp Routledge 2009Speaks 2021 3 1 Mentalist Theories Chapman amp Routledge 2009Holm amp Karlgren 1995 p 22Appiah amp Gutmann 1998 p 34Pearce 2022 pp 194 195 Chapman amp Routledge 2009Pearce 2022 pp 194 195Speaks 2021 3 1 1 The Gricean Program Chapman amp Routledge 2009Glock 2012 p 52Speaks 2021 3 1 1 The Gricean ProgramFeng 2010 pp 11 12 Feng 2010 p 19 Glock 2012 pp 51 52Blackburn 2008aSpeaks 2021 3 2 1 Causal Origin Holm amp Karlgren 1995 p 23Lyons 1996 pp 120 123 125Lepore 2009 p 1026 Duignan 2023 Behaviourist SemanticsLepore 2009 p 1026 Lyons 1996 pp 123 125 Lyons 1996 pp 120 121 Blackburn 2008aSpeaks 2021 3 2 1 Causal Origin Blackburn 2008a Speaks 2021 3 2 1 Causal Origin Dummett 2008 pp 45 46Kearns 2011 pp 8 11 Berto amp Jago 2023 1 Reasons for Introducing Impossible Worlds Kearns 2011 pp 8 11 Glock 2012 p 51Morris amp Preti 2023 pp 369 370Boyd Gasper amp Trout 1991 p 5Lepore 2009 p 1027 Boyd Gasper amp Trout 1991 p 5 Morris amp Preti 2023 pp 369 370Boyd Gasper amp Trout 1991 p 5 Holm amp Karlgren 1995 pp 23 24Strauven 2018 p 78 Speaks 2021 3 2 4 Regularities in Use Speaks 2021 3 2 5 Social Norms Speaks 2021 2 2 3 Inferentialist SemanticsWhiting Lead Section 1a A Theory of Linguistic MeaningHess 2022 Abstract 1 Introduction Whiting 1a A Theory of Linguistic Meaning Meier Oeser 2019 p 182Nerlich 1992 p 2 Geeraerts 2010 p 1Kay 2015 pp 1 2 Meier Oeser 2019 pp 184 185Allan 2015 p 48Kretzmann 2006 pp 752 753 Meier Oeser 2019 pp 186 187Kretzmann 2006 pp 755 756 Meier Oeser 2019 pp 189 191Kretzmann 2006 pp 757 758 Bekkum et al 1997 pp 110 112 Bekkum et al 1997 p 102Chakrabarti 1997 p 215 Bekkum et al 1997 pp 75 76 Aklujkar 1970 p 13Staal 1966 pp 304 307Bekkum et al 1997 pp 110 112Cardona 2019 p 303 Fraser 2023 pp 204 205Indraccolo 2020 p 174 Sun 2014 p 23Fraser 2020 Lead Section 2 1 Same and Different Meier Oeser 2019 p 192Kretzmann 2006 pp 759 761Benin 2012 p 94 Meier Oeser 2019 pp 193 195Kretzmann 2006 pp 761 762 Meier Oeser 2019 pp 197 198Kretzmann 2006 pp 763 764Provenzola 2013 p 22 Bekkum et al 1997 p 229Leaman 2015 p 180 Meier Oeser 2019 pp 198 199Kretzmann 2006 pp 769 770Blackburn 2008b Meier Oeser 2019 pp 200 201Kretzmann 2006 pp 769 770 Meier Oeser 2019 pp 201 202Kretzmann 2006 pp 770 771 Meier Oeser 2019 pp 205 206Kretzmann 2006 pp 773 774Martin 1953 p 210 Meier Oeser 2019 pp 206 207Kretzmann 2006 p 777 Meier Oeser 2019 pp 207 208Kretzmann 2006 pp 777 778Chapman amp Routledge 2009 Meier Oeser 2019 pp 209 210Kretzmann 2006 pp 779 780 Meier Oeser 2019 pp 212 213Kretzmann 2006 pp 784 785 Nerlich 2019 pp 218 221 223 Nerlich 2019 pp 230 231Allan 2015 p 51 Kretzmann 2006 pp 795 796 Burch amp Parker 2024 4 Pragmatism Pragmaticism and the Scientific MethodKretzmann 2006 pp 797 799 Kretzmann 2006 pp 787 789Pelletier 1994 Abstract Kretzmann 2006 pp 802 803 Harris 2017 pp 150 162Gupta 2011 p 236Lepore amp Ludwig 2009 pp 1 2 Harris 2017 pp 150 162Chatzikyriakidis amp Luo 2021 p 6 Rowe amp Levine 2015 p 151 Murphy 2009 p 27Noth 1990 p 61 Hormann 2013 p 298Steinfatt 2009 pp 438 440 Taylor 2009 p 73Fischer 2013 p 7 Croft amp Cruse 2004 p 8 Ostman amp Fried 2005 pp 191 192 Riemer 2010 pp 173 174Jaakko amp Sandu 2006 pp 13 14Shapiro amp Kouri Kissel 2024 Lead Section 2 Language Shapiro amp Kouri Kissel 2024 Lead Section 4 SemanticsJansana 2022 5 Algebraic SemanticsJaakko amp Sandu 2006 pp 17 18 Grimm 2009 pp 116 117Shapiro amp Kouri Kissel 2024 Lead Section 4 SemanticsMagnus et al 2021 pp 193 195 Riemer 2010 pp 173 174Jaakko amp Sandu 2006 pp 13 14Shapiro amp Kouri Kissel 2024 Lead SectionGregory 2017 p 82 Forster 2003 pp 74 75Johnstone 1987 p 23Shapiro amp Kouri Kissel 2024 Lead Section 4 SemanticsJaakko amp Sandu 2006 pp 17 20 Fernandez 2014 pp 10 14 15Dale Weems amp Headington 2003 pp 42 44O Regan 2020 p 193 Fernandez 2014 pp 14 15Fritzson 2010 p 703Mosses 2003 p 167 Fernandez 2014 pp 15 16Fritzson 2010 p 703Mosses 2003 p 167 Fernandez 2014 p 16O Regan 2020 pp 193 194 Smith Rips amp Shoben 1975 pp 1 3Sanford 2009 pp 792 793 796 Halpern amp Voĭskunskiĭ 1997 p 21Cohen 2009 p 59 Sanford 2009 pp 793 797 Smith Rips amp Shoben 1975 pp 3 4Hampton 2015 p 125Tulving 2001 p 278 Sanford 2009 p 792Smith Rips amp Shoben 1975 pp 3 4 42Hampton 2015 pp 125 128Shi 2017 pp 85 86 Sources edit Abaza Jack 2023 The Definitive Answer to the Meaning of Life Wipf and Stock ISBN 979 8 385 20172 3 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link AHD Staff 2022 Semantics American Heritage Dictionary Harper Collins Archived from the original on 31 January 2024 Retrieved 31 January 2024 AHD Staff 2022 Hermeneutics American Heritage Dictionary Harper Collins Archived from the original on 23 February 2024 Retrieved 31 January 2024 Aklujkar Ashok 1970 Ancient Indian Semantics Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute 51 1 4 11 29 ISSN 0378 1143 JSTOR 41688671 Allan Keith 2009 Introduction In Allan Keith ed Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 95969 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Allan Keith 2015 3 A History of Semantics In Riemer Nick ed The Routledge Handbook of Semantics Routledge ISBN 978 1 317 41245 8 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Anderson Derek Egan 2021 Metasemantics and Intersectionality in the Misinformation Age Truth in Political Struggle Springer Nature ISBN 978 3 030 73339 1 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Andreou Marios 2015 Lexical Negation in Lexical Semantics The Prefixes in and dis Morphology 25 4 391 410 doi 10 1007 s11525 015 9266 z Appiah Kwame Anthony Gutmann Amy 1998 Color Conscious The Political Morality of Race Princeton University Press ISBN 978 1 400 82209 6 Retrieved 2024 02 18 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Bagha Karim Nazari 2011 A Short Introduction to Semantics Journal of Language Teaching and Research 2 6 doi 10 4304 jltr 2 6 1411 1419 Bekkum Wout Jac van Houben Jan Sluiter Ineke Versteegh Kees 1997 The Emergence of Semantics in Four Linguistic Traditions Hebrew Sanskrit Greek Arabic John Benjamins ISBN 978 9 027 29881 2 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Benin Stephen D 2012 The Footprints of God Divine Accommodation in Jewish and Christian Thought State University of New York Press ISBN 978 0 791 49628 2 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Berto Francesco Jago Mark 2023 Impossible Worlds The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University Archived from the original on 10 February 2021 Retrieved 17 February 2024 Berwick Robert C Stabler Edward P 2019 Minimalist Parsing Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 198 79508 7 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Bezuidenhout A 2009 Semantics Pragmatics Boundary In Allan Keith ed Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 95969 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Bieswanger Markus Becker Annette 2017 Introduction to English Linguistics UTB ISBN 978 3 825 24528 3 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Blackburn Simon 2008 Truth Conditions The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 199 54143 0 Archived from the original on 2024 02 08 Retrieved 2024 02 09 Blackburn Simon 2008 Causal Theory of Meaning The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 199 54143 0 Archived from the original on 2024 02 17 Retrieved 2024 02 18 Blackburn Simon 2008 Syncategorematic The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 199 54143 0 Archived from the original on 2024 02 23 Retrieved 2024 02 23 Blackburn Simon 2008 Referentially Opaque Transparent The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 199 54143 0 Archived from the original on 2024 02 24 Retrieved 2024 02 24 Bohnemeyer Jurgen 2021 Ten Lectures on Field Semantics and Semantic Typology Brill ISBN 978 9 004 36262 8 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Boyd Richard Gasper Philip Trout J D 1991 The Philosophy of Science MIT Press ISBN 978 0 262 52156 7 Retrieved 2024 02 18 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Bublitz Wolfram Norrick Neal R 2011 Foundations of Pragmatics Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978 3 110 21426 0 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Bunt Harry Muskens Reinhard 1999 Computational Semantics Computing Meaning Volume 1 Springer Netherlands doi 10 1007 978 94 011 4231 1 1 ISBN 978 9 401 14231 1 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Burch Robert Parker Kelly A 2024 Charles Sanders Peirce The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University Archived from the original on 7 January 2020 Retrieved 22 February 2024 Burgess Alexis Sherman Brett 2014 Introduction A Plea for the Metaphysics of Meaning In Burgess Alexis Sherman Brett eds Metasemantics New Essays on the Foundations of Meaning Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 191 64835 9 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Cardona Georgio R 2019 Panini A Survey of Research Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978 3 110 80010 4 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Carston Robyn 2011 Truth conditional Semantics In Sbisa Marina Ostman Jan Ola Verschueren Jef eds Philosophical Perspectives for Pragmatics John Benjamins ISBN 978 9 027 20787 6 Retrieved 2024 02 10 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Chakrabarti A 1997 Denying Existence The Logic Epistemology and Pragmatics of Negative Existentials and Fictional Discourse Springer ISBN 978 0 792 34388 2 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Chapman Siobhan Routledge Christopher 2009 Ideational Theories Key Ideas in Linguistics and the Philosophy of Language Edinburgh University Press pp 84 85 doi 10 1515 9780748631421 033 ISBN 978 0 748 63142 1 Retrieved 2024 02 18 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Chatzikyriakidis Stergios Luo Zhaohui 2021 Formal Semantics in Modern Type Theories John Wiley amp Sons ISBN 978 1 786 30128 4 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Cohen Jonathan 2009 The Red and the Real An Essay on Color Ontology Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 191 60960 2 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Cornish Francis 1999 Anaphora Discourse and Understanding Evidence from English and French Clarendon Press ISBN 978 0 198 70028 9 Retrieved 2024 02 24 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Crimmins Mark 1998 Semantics Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Routledge doi 10 4324 9780415249126 U036 1 ISBN 978 0 415 25069 6 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Croft William Cruse D Alan 2004 Cognitive Linguistics Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 0 521 66770 8 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Cunningham D J 2009 Meaning Sense and Reference In Allan Keith ed Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 95969 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Dale Nell B Weems Chip Headington Mark R 2003 Programming and Problem Solving with Java Jones amp Bartlett ISBN 978 0 763 70490 2 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Davis Wayne A 2005 Nondescriptive Meaning and Reference An Ideational Semantics Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 191 60309 9 Archived from the original on 2024 02 16 Retrieved 2024 02 18 Dirven Rene Verspoor Marjolijn 2004 Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics 2nd ed John Benjamins ISBN 978 9 027 29541 5 Retrieved 2024 02 09 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Duignan Brian 2023 Semantics Encyclopaedia Britannica Archived from the original on 5 December 2023 Retrieved 17 February 2024 Dummett Michael 1981 Frege Philosophy of Language Harvard University Press ISBN 978 0 674 31931 8 Retrieved 2024 02 09 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Dummett Michael 2008 Thought and Reality Clarendon ISBN 978 0 199 20727 5 Edmonds P 2009 Disambiguation In Allan Keith ed Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 95969 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Enfield N J 2002 Ethnosyntax Explorations in Grammar and Culture Explorations in Grammar and Culture Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 191 58179 3 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Erk Katrin 2018 Computational Semantics Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 199 38465 5 Archived from the original on 2024 02 13 Retrieved 2024 02 15 Farese Gian Marco 2018 The Cultural Semantics of Address Practices A Contrastive Study Between English and Italian Rowman amp Littlefield ISBN 978 1 498 57928 5 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Fasold Ralph Connor Linton Jeffrey 2006 An Introduction to Language and Linguistics Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 1 107 71766 4 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Feng Guangwu 2010 A Theory of Conventional Implicature and Pragmatic Markers in Chinese Brill ISBN 978 1 849 50934 3 Retrieved 2024 02 18 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Fernandez Maribel 2014 Programming Languages and Operational Semantics A Concise Overview Springer ISBN 978 1 447 16368 8 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Fillmore C J 2009 Frame Semantics In Allan Keith ed Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 95969 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Fischer Kerstin 2013 From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978 3 110 82864 1 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Forster Thomas 2003 Logic Induction and Sets Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 0 521 53361 4 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Fraser Chris 2020 School of Names The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University Fraser Chris 2023 Late Classical Chinese Thought Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 192 59168 5 Fritzson Peter 2010 Principles of Object Oriented Modeling and Simulation with Modelica 2 1 John Wiley amp Sons ISBN 978 0 470 93761 7 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Gamut L T F 1991 Logic Language and Meaning Volume 1 Introduction to Logic University of Chicago Press ISBN 978 0 226 28084 4 Retrieved 2024 02 09 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Gawron Jean Mark 2011 29 Frame Semantics Semantics De Gruyter Mouton ISBN 978 3 110 22661 4 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Geeraerts Dirk 2010 Theories of Lexical Semantics Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 198 70030 2 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Geeraerts Dirk 2017 Lexical Semantics Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Linguistics Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 199 38465 5 Archived from the original on 2024 02 15 Retrieved 2024 02 15 Gibbs Raymond W 1994 The Poetics of Mind Figurative Thought Language and Understanding Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 0 521 42992 4 Retrieved 2024 02 18 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Glock Hans Johann 2012 What Is a Theory of Meaning Just When You Thought Conceptual Analysis Was Dead Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 65 51 79 ISSN 0068 516X JSTOR 24324915 Gregory Howard 2016 Semantics Routledge ISBN 978 0 415 21610 4 Gregory Paul A 2017 Formal Logic Broadview Press ISBN 978 1 77048 594 5 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Griffiths Patrick Cummins Chris 2023 An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics 3rd ed Edinburgh University Press ISBN 978 1 399 50460 7 Grimm Stephan 2009 Knowledge Representation and Ontologies In Gaber Mohamed Medhat ed Scientific Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Principles and Foundations Springer ISBN 978 3 642 02788 8 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Groenendijk J Stokhof M 2009 Dynamic Semantics In Allan Keith ed Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 95969 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Gross Steven 2016 Descriptive Externalism in Semantics In Riemer Nick ed The Routledge Handbook of Semantics Routledge ISBN 978 0 415 66173 7 Gupta Anil 2011 An Argument Against Tarski s Convention T In Schantz Richard ed What Is Truth Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978 3 110 88666 5 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Halpern Diane F Voĭskunskiĭ Aleksandr 1997 States of Mind American and Post Soviet Perspectives on Contemporary Issues in Psychology Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 19 510351 9 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Hampton James A 2015 7 Categories Prototypes and Exemplars In Riemer Nick ed The Routledge Handbook of Semantics Routledge ISBN 978 1 317 41245 8 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Harris Daniel W 2017 The History and Prehistory of Natural Language Semantics Innovations in the History of Analytical Philosophy Palgrave Macmillan pp 149 194 doi 10 1057 978 1 137 40808 2 6 ISBN 978 1 137 40808 2 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Heffer Simon 2014 Simply English An A Z of Avoidable Errors Random House ISBN 978 1 446 47380 1 Hess Leopold 2022 Inferentialist Semantics for Lexicalized Social Meanings Synthese 200 5 doi 10 1007 s11229 022 03817 5 Hoad T F 1993 The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 192 83098 2 Holm P Karlgren K 1995 Theories of Meaning and Different Perspectives on Information Systems Information System Concepts Towards a Consolidation of Views Springer US doi 10 1007 978 0 387 34870 4 3 ISBN 978 0 387 34870 4 Archived from the original on 2024 02 16 Retrieved 2024 02 18 Hormann Hans 2013 Psycholinguistics An Introduction to Research and Theory Springer Science amp Business Media ISBN 978 1 461 26211 4 Retrieved 2024 02 24 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Indraccolo Lisa 2020 Argumentation Bian 辯 In Fung Yiu ming ed Dao Companion to Chinese Philosophy of Logic Dao Companions to Chinese Philosophy Vol 12 Springer Nature ISBN 978 3 030 29033 7 Jaakko Hintikka Sandu Gabriel 2006 What Is Logic Philosophy of Logic Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 46663 7 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Jackendoff Ray 2013 Constructions in the Parallel Architecture In Hoffmann Thomas Trousdale Graeme eds The Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 199 37663 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Jackendoff Ray 2011 30 Conceptual Semantics Semantics De Gruyter Mouton doi 10 1515 9783110226614 688 ISBN 978 3 110 22661 4 Jackendoff Ray 2002 Foundations of Language Brain Meaning Grammar Evolution Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 198 27012 6 Jacobson Pauline I 2014 Compositional Semantics An Introduction to the Syntax Semantics Interface Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 199 67714 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Jansana Ramon 2022 Algebraic Propositional Logic The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University Archived from the original on 20 December 2016 Retrieved 19 February 2024 Janssen Theo M V Zimmermann Thomas Ede 2021 Montague Semantics The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University Archived from the original on 16 April 2021 Retrieved 12 February 2024 Jiang Yan 2016 Deixis and Anaphora A Reference Grammar of Chinese Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 0 521 76939 6 Retrieved 2024 02 24 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Johnstone P T 1987 Notes on Logic and Set Theory Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 0 521 33692 5 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Jun J S 2009 Lexical Conceptual Structure In Allan Keith ed Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 95969 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Kay Christian 2015 English Historical Semantics Edinburgh University Press ISBN 978 0 748 64479 7 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Kearns Kate 2011 Semantics Palgrave Macmillan ISBN 978 0 333 71701 1 King Jeffrey C 2006 Semantics In Borchert Donald M ed The Encyclopedia of Philosophy 8 Price Sextus Empiricus 2nd ed Thomson Gale Macmillan Reference ISBN 978 0 028 65788 2 Kortmann Bernd 2020 English Linguistics Essentials Springer Nature ISBN 978 3 476 05678 8 Retrieved 2024 02 25 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Kretzmann Norman 2006 Semantics History of In Borchert Donald M ed The Encyclopedia of Philosophy 8 Price Sextus Empiricus 2nd ed Thomson Gale Macmillan Reference ISBN 978 0 028 65788 2 Krifka Manfred 2001 Compositionality In Wilson Robert A Keil Frank C eds The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences MITECS MIT Press ISBN 978 0 262 73144 7 Retrieved 2024 02 09 Kuche Louise Rowland Susan 2023 Rhetoric Influence and Persuation In Rowland Susan Kuchel Louise eds Teaching Science Students to Communicate A Practical Guide Springer Nature ISBN 978 3 030 91628 2 Retrieved 2024 02 24 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link L Homme Marie Claude 2020 Lexical Semantics for Terminology An Introduction John Benjamins ISBN 978 9 027 26178 6 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Leach Stephen Tartaglia James 2018 Postscript The Blue Flower The Meaning of Life and the Great Philosophers Routledge ISBN 978 1 315 38592 1 Leaman Oliver 2015 The Biographical Encyclopedia of Islamic Philosophy Bloomsbury ISBN 978 1 472 56945 5 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Lepore E 2009 Truth Conditional Semantics and Meaning In Allan Keith ed Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 95969 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Lepore Ernest Ludwig Kirk 2009 Donald Davidson s Truth Theoretic Semantics Clarendon ISBN 978 0 191 53749 3 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Lewis David 2012 General Semantics In Davidson Donald Harman Gilbert eds Semantics of Natural Language Springer ISBN 978 9 401 02557 7 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Li Fuyin 2021 Cognitive Semantics Oxford Bibliographies Archived from the original on 25 March 2023 Retrieved 10 February 2024 Lobner Sebastian 2013 Understanding Semantics 2nd ed Routledge ISBN 978 0 415 82673 0 Lyons John 1996 Semantics 1 Repr ed Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 0 521 21473 5 Magnus P D Button Tim Thomas Bolduc Aaron Zach Richard Loftis J Robert Trueman Robert 2021 Forall X Calgary An Introduction to Formal Logic PDF University of Calgary ISBN 979 8 527 34950 4 Archived PDF from the original on 16 February 2023 Retrieved 27 March 2023 Malpas Jeff 2014 Introduction Hermeneutics and Philosophy In Malpas Jeff Gander Hans Helmuth eds The Routledge Companion to Hermeneutics Routledge ISBN 978 1 317 67664 5 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Marquez Miguel Fuster 2011 Working with Words An Introduction to English Linguistics Universitat de Valencia ISBN 978 8 437 08579 1 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Marti Genoveva 1998 Sense and Reference Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy Routledge doi 10 4324 9780415249126 X038 1 ISBN 978 0 415 25069 6 Retrieved 2024 02 09 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Martin R M 1953 On the Semantics of Hobbes Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14 2 205 211 JSTOR 2103327 Meier Oeser Stephan 2019 8 Meaning in Pre 19th Century Thought Foundations History and Methods De Gruyter Mouton ISBN 978 3 110 37373 8 Meulen Alice ter 2008 Philosophy of Language and Linguistics In Dascal Marcelo Gerhardus Dietfried Lorenz Kuno Meggle Georg eds Sprachphilosophie Philosophy of Language in German Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978 3 110 20329 5 Retrieved 2024 02 24 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Moeschler Jacques 2007 Introduction to Semantics In Rajman Martin ed Speech and Language Engineering EPFL Press ISBN 978 0 824 72219 7 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Morris Kevin Preti Consuelo 2023 Early Analytic Philosophy An Inclusive Reader with Commentary Bloomsbury ISBN 978 1 350 32361 2 Retrieved 2024 02 18 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Mosses Peter D 2003 The Varieties of Programming Language Semantics And Their Uses In Bjorner Dines Broy Manfred Zamulin Alexandre eds Perspectives of System Informatics 4th International Andrei Ershov Memorial Conference PSI 2001 Akademgorodok Novosibirsk Russia July 2 6 2001 Revised Papers Springer ISBN 978 3 540 45575 2 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Murphy M L Koskela Anu 2010 Key Terms in Semantics A amp C Black ISBN 978 1 847 06276 5 Retrieved 2024 02 09 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Murphy M L 2009 Antonymy and Incompatibility In Allan Keith ed Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 95969 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Mushayabasa Godwin 2014 Translation Technique in the Peshitta to Ezekiel 1 24 A Frame Semantics Approach Brill ISBN 978 9 004 27443 3 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Nerlich Brigitte 2019 9 The Emergence of Linguistic Semantics in the 19th and Early 20th Century Foundations History and Methods De Gruyter Mouton ISBN 978 3 110 37373 8 Nerlich Brigitte 1992 Semantic Theories in Europe 1830 1930 From Etymology to Contextuality John Benjamins ISBN 978 9 027 27726 8 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Noth Winfried 1990 Handbook of Semiotics Indiana University Press ISBN 978 0 253 20959 7 Retrieved 2024 02 09 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Nouwen Rick Brasoveanu Adrian van Eijck Jan Visser Albert 2022 Dynamic Semantics The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University Archived from the original on 25 February 2024 Retrieved 13 February 2024 Olkowski Dorothea Pirovolakis Eftichis 2019 Deleuze and Guattari s Philosophy of Freedom Freedom s Refrains Routledge ISBN 978 0 429 66352 9 Retrieved 2024 02 09 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Ostman Jan Ola Fried Mirjam 2005 Construction Grammars Cognitive Grounding and Theoretical Extensions John Benjamins ISBN 978 9 027 21823 0 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link O Regan Gerard 2020 Mathematics in Computing An Accessible Guide to Historical Foundational and Application Contexts Springer Nature ISBN 978 3 030 34209 8 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Palmer Frank Robert 1976 Semantics A New Outline Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 0 521 20927 4 Park Johnson Sunny K Shin Sarah J 2020 Linguistics for Language Teachers Lessons for Classroom Practice Routledge Taylor amp Francis ISBN 978 1 138 68182 8 Partee Barbara 1997 Opacity and Scope In Ludlow Peter ed Readings in the Philosophy of Language MIT Press ISBN 978 0 262 62114 4 Retrieved 2024 02 24 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Pavel Thomas G 1986 Fictional Worlds Harvard University Press ISBN 978 0 674 29966 5 Retrieved 2024 02 18 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Pearce Kenneth L 2022 Berkeley s Theory of Language The Oxford Handbook of Berkeley Oxford University Press ISBN 978 0 190 87342 4 Retrieved 2024 02 18 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Peeters Bert 2006 Semantic Primes and Universal Grammar Empirical Evidence from the Romance Languages John Benjamins ISBN 978 9 027 23091 1 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Pelletier Francis Jeffry 1994 The Principle of Semantic Compositionality Topoi 13 1 11 24 doi 10 1007 BF00763644 Pollock John L 2017 The Foundations of Philosophical Semantics Princeton University Press ISBN 978 1 400 88646 3 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Portner Paul H Partee Barbara H 2008 Formal Semantics The Essential Readings John Wiley amp Sons ISBN 978 0 470 75818 2 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Provenzola Thomas 2013 Abelard Peter In Hindson Edward E Mitchell Daniel R eds The Popular Encyclopedia of Church History The People Places and Events That Shaped Christianity Harvest House ISBN 978 0 736 94807 4 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Pustejovsky J 2009 Lexical Semantics In Allan Keith ed Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 95969 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Pustejovsky J 2006 Lexical Semantics Overview Encyclopedia of Language amp Linguistics 2nd ed Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 44854 1 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Reif Monika Polzenhagen Frank 2023 Cultural Linguistics and Critical Discourse Studies John Benjamins ISBN 978 9 027 24952 4 Retrieved 2024 02 09 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Riemer Nick 2010 Introducing Semantics Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 0 521 85192 3 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Riemer Nick 2016 Internalist Semantics Meaning Conceptualization and Expression In Riemer Nick ed The Routledge Handbook of Semantics Routledge ISBN 978 0 415 66173 7 Rooij Robert van 2012 Meaning and Use In Kempson Ruth M Fernando Tim Asher Nicholas eds Philosophy of Linguistics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 444 51747 0 Retrieved 2024 02 18 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Rowe Bruce M Levine Diane P 2015 A Concise Introduction to Linguistics Routledge ISBN 978 1 317 34928 0 Retrieved 2024 02 24 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Saeed John I 2009 Semantics 3rd ed Wiley Blackwell ISBN 978 1 405 15639 4 Sanford A J 2009 Psychology Semantics in In Allan Keith ed Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 95969 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Shapiro Stewart Kouri Kissel Teresa 2024 Classical Logic The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University Archived from the original on 3 May 1998 Retrieved 19 February 2024 Shead Stephen 2011 Radical Frame Semantics and Biblical Hebrew Exploring Lexical Semantics Brill ISBN 978 9 004 22218 2 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Shi Zhongzhi 2017 Mind Computation World Scientific ISBN 978 981 314 582 5 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Smith Edward E Rips Lance J Shoben Edward J 1975 Semantic Memory and Psychological Semantics In Bower Gordon H ed The Psychology of Learning and Motivation Academic Press ISBN 978 0 080 86359 7 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Speaks Jeff 2021 Theories of Meaning The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University Archived from the original on 26 September 2019 Retrieved 10 February 2024 Staal J F 1966 Indian Semantics I Journal of the American Oriental Society 86 3 304 311 ISSN 0003 0279 JSTOR 597038 Steinfatt Thomas M 2009 General Semantics In Littlejohn Stephen W Foss Karen A eds Encyclopedia of Communication Theory Sage ISBN 978 1 412 95937 7 Retrieved 2024 02 24 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Strauven Wanda 2018 Marinetti s Tattilismo Revisited In Catanese Rossella ed Futurist Cinema Studies on Italian Avant garde Film Amsterdam University Press ISBN 978 9 048 52523 2 Retrieved 2024 02 18 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Sun Zhenbin 2014 Language Discourse and Praxis in Ancient China Springer ISBN 978 3 642 54865 9 Szabo Zoltan Gendler 2020 Compositionality Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University Archived from the original on 25 February 2024 Retrieved 7 February 2024 Taylor J R 2009 Cognitive Semantics In Allan Keith ed Concise Encyclopedia of Semantics Elsevier ISBN 978 0 080 95969 6 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Taylor J R 2013 Cognitive Semantics and Structural Semantics In Blank Andreas Koch Peter eds Historical Semantics and Cognition Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978 3 110 80419 5 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Taylor John R 2017 Lexical Semantics The Cambridge Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 1 107 54420 8 Archived from the original on 2024 02 15 Retrieved 2024 02 15 Tondl L 2012 Problems of Semantics A Contribution to the Analysis of the Language Science Springer ISBN 978 9 400 98364 9 Retrieved 2024 02 09 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Trips Carola 2009 Lexical Semantics and Diachronic Morphology The Development of hood dom and ship in the History of English Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978 3 484 30527 4 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Tulving Endel 2001 Episodic Vs Semantic Memory In Wilson Robert A Keil Frank C eds The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences MITECS MIT Press ISBN 978 0 262 73144 7 Retrieved 2024 02 19 a href Template Cite encyclopedia html title Template Cite encyclopedia cite encyclopedia a CS1 maint url status link Valin Robert D Van 2008 Investigations of the Syntax semantics pragmatics Interface John Benjamins ISBN 978 9 027 20572 8 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Vamos Tibor 2019 3 Knowledge Representation In Liebowitz Jay ed The Handbook of Applied Expert Systems CRC Press ISBN 978 0 429 60697 7 Retrieved 2024 02 23 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Whiting Daniel Conceptual Role Semantics Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Archived from the original on 17 February 2024 Retrieved 17 February 2024 Wierzbicka Anna 1988 The Semantics of Grammar John Benjamins ISBN 978 9 027 23019 5 Retrieved 2024 02 15 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Williams Noel 1997 The Semantics of the Word Fairy Making Meaning Out of Thin Air In Narvaez Peter ed The Good People New Fairylore Essays University Press of Kentucky ISBN 978 0 813 10939 8 Retrieved 2024 02 10 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Yule George 2010 The Study of Language 4th ed Cambridge University Press ISBN 978 0 521 76527 5 Zaefferer D 2019 Introduction Universals and Semantics In Zaefferer D ed Semantic Universals and Universal Semantics Walter de Gruyter ISBN 978 3 110 87052 7 Retrieved 2024 02 04 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint url status link Zalta Edward N 2022 Gottlob Frege The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Metaphysics Research Lab Stanford University Archived from the original on 25 February 2024 Retrieved 9 February 2024 Zhao Ming 2023 Preface Cultural Semantics in the Lexicon of Modern Chinese Brill ISBN 978 9 004 53518 3 Archived from the original on 2024 02 15 Retrieved 2024 02 15 External links edit nbsp Wikimedia Commons has media related to Semantics nbsp Look up semantics in Wiktionary the free dictionary nbsp Wikibooks has a book on the topic of Linguistics Semantics Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Semantics amp oldid 1218025142, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.