Talk:Meaning (linguistics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Philosophy | (Rated B-Class, Mid-importance) | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Linguistics | (Rated C-Class, Top-importance) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||
Meaning (general) is a non-page. I have made it a redirect. Am removing the "merge" tag. Lucidish 23:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Havent heard about Semiotics?
- Ahhh great! These philosophy of language articles are basically ignored by the hordes. There's a lot of good content in here too, on a quick glance. Needs to be referenced, cleaned up and so on. I haven't looked too mcuh into the content of specific sections. But, from an overview, it seems that you are missing something on
the struggle between semantic atomisn, holism and so on. I can't decide if this should go in here or the other article. Probably here. The tranlsation/interpreation section of this one should probable be in the POL article. The logic is simplt that there is nothing on translation/interpreation there, yet is mentioned as one of the most importan aspect of POL. I think I'll move that over there and expand a bit. Don't worry, it wonìt blow up. We can alwways move more of the reference section out to the reference article (ahich I havenìt looked at yet.).--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 13:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Sometimes it takes a fresh pair of eyes to catch this kind of thing, but now that I think of it, you're right. Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 15:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)sounds good to me tooo.
Contents |
[edit] overlap
hi. would please a linguist decide on whether my uneasy feeling about having semantics and meaning (linguistics) side by side is justified or not... Kku 14:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re-move
The article shouldn't have been moved from meaning (linguistic), since it is not an article on linguistics, but an article on the philosophy of language. Actually, the name of the article should be "(Linguistic) Meaning", "Linguistic meaning" or even "Meaning (language)". Velho 02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- You make a fair point, sort of, though: a) this article is Meaning (linguistic), which makes your comment's intent unclear; b) the overlap between the perspectives on semantics given by linguists and philosophers of language are not-so-remarkably similar, at least with respect to the recognized treatment of i) semantics-pragmatics, ii) cognitive semantics (esp. prototype theories) vs. classical categorization. Still, you're right, that there are issues that are absolutely essential to a linguistic approach that are not given sufficient treatment here: the interplay between syntax and semantics, lexical relations among words (i.e., synonymy, antonymy, etc). Another split (b/w "Linguistic meaning" and "Meaning (linguistic)") would seem justified. { Ben S. Nelson } 03:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe the title should be "Meaning (spoken)". Another can of worms... I agree that the article should not have been moved. Bob 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here, the original move was from Philosophy of language (which was getting too big and unreasonably focused on meaning alone), and then from Meaning (which needed to be bifurcated into language- and non-linguistic forms). The problem here is that "Meaning (linguistic)" can be, and is, easily mistaken for "Meaning (linguistics)", which in hindsight seems unfortunate. But the original moves were entirely justified, if ill-executed. { Ben S. Nelson }
- Ben, you are right. Now what are you going to do? Bob 06:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I just added a split tag. Let's see what other folks say. If there's a consensus, we'll fork it. { Ben S. Nelson } 22:10, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ben, you are right. Now what are you going to do? Bob 06:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing here, the original move was from Philosophy of language (which was getting too big and unreasonably focused on meaning alone), and then from Meaning (which needed to be bifurcated into language- and non-linguistic forms). The problem here is that "Meaning (linguistic)" can be, and is, easily mistaken for "Meaning (linguistics)", which in hindsight seems unfortunate. But the original moves were entirely justified, if ill-executed. { Ben S. Nelson }
- Maybe the title should be "Meaning (spoken)". Another can of worms... I agree that the article should not have been moved. Bob 23:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Split
- I'll support the split. Just do it and see if the articles can stand one their own. Banno 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Concur { Ben S. Nelson } 23:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- Split But could the simpler word 'language' be used unstead of 'linguistic' Anarchia 21:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't object to the use of the word "language", but what should the full title be? "Language meaning" sounds bad. { Ben S. Nelson } 22:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. { Ben S. Nelson } 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] introduction
In following with most other wikipedia articles, I think it would be wise to start this article with something like "Meaning is _____" rather than starting it in medias res, so to speak. A nice, plain, non-circuitous, and linguistic definition is what is called for to start this article.--121.208.168.181 (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Request
That editors who contribute to and watch this article check out this Article for Deletion nomination and comment. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] A convenient distinction of two kinds of meaning
Link...--> --Faustnh (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
