Ratna Sari
Title: Semantic field, Semantic Relation and Semantic Component
Author: Benedict Orji Ukpabi
Pages: 17
Content:
This discussion about the semantic field, semantic relation and
semantic components. It characterized the semantic field.
Semantic field is a set of words or lexemes related in meaning; also called
lexical field, field, or field of meaning. Most often, fields are defined by
subject matter, such as body parts, landforms, diseases, colours, foods, or
kinship relations.
Semantic Relations, Semantic relations or meaning relations are words that are
semantically related to other words.
There are lexical groups or components that made up semantic
relation :
1.
Synonym
2.
Antonyms
3.
Polysemy
4.
Antagonymy
5.
Homonymy
6.
Hyponymy/hypernymy
Semantic Components, A semantic component is a potentially contrastive part of the
meaning of a lexical unit
Result/Finding: This study
about a set of words or lexemes related in meaning, semantic relations or
meaning relations are words that are semantically related to other words. This semantic
also about the sinonim,antonyms,polysemy,antagonymy,homonymy,hyponymy, and
about the semantic components that part of the meaning of a lexical unit.
Strength and
Weakness:
Strange:
This paper is full of explanation and so many examples. The author
had completed answer of that three question. I got something new about semantic
in this paper beside of my previous review. Now, I know what is semantics
field, relation and components. And also we got what the purpose of this learn,
advantages and disadvantages used it to describe the meaning of word. A students who is study about semantic must
read this paper. You can get new understanding of semantics in here.
Weakness:
I got a little problem of some word example that is so many new
word I did not know the meaning, so if you read this paper you must diligent
open your dictionary. But it will help you to improve your English.
Conclusion:
This conclusion article’s we study about the semantic field,
lexemes related in meaning.
DESI NORI
SAHPUTRI
Judul: Teori Semantik: Kemuliaan dan Keterbatasan
Searcher 1: Saleh Mustafa Ramadhan
Dari: Al-Zaytoonah Universitas Swasta Yordania, Amman, Yordania.
Pencari 2: Taleb I. Ababneh
Dari: Irbid National University-Jordan, Irbid, Yordania.
Halaman: 9
Content:
This articles about the Theories of
Semantics. Mainly referential theory of meaning, non– referential
theory of meaning and generative grammarian theory of meaning are discussed.
Result/Finding:
Bloomfield (1933) stated that the context of situation
was an essential part of meaning. He defined the meaning of a linguistic form
as the situation in which the speaker utters it and the response which it calls
forth in the hearer. Palmer(1981) used reference in the sense of non–
linguistic world of objects and experiences. In this sense, the word reference
is used for the whole network of the contexts of situations in which we live.
In other words, both Bloomfield and Palmer focus on the context of situations.
Bloomfield also thinks of meaning as something describable in terms of stimuli
and responses like Skinner who came after him. Skinner (1957) views meaning as
a result of stimuli and responses made by participants in a verbal act of
communication.
Strength and Weakness:
So many theories have been interested in
the study of meaning. Because of the limited scope of this paper, the
discussion will cover some of the well–known theories of meaning formulated in
the last century. Mainly referential theory of meaning, non– referential theory
of meaning and generative grammarian theory of meaning are discussed. Some
assumptions, merits and limitations for each theory are also described.
Conclusion:
The researcher has discussed the main of meaning ,their view about
meaning is nearly the same as of the Greekphilosophers. The only new thing they
added is that it is the human mind that links an object.
ANNISA SEPTIANI
Title : Modern
Linguistics Semantics
Author : Kate
Kearns,Senior Lecturer, Department of Linguistics.
From : University of
Canterbury New Zealand.
Upload : Pooja Saikia
Content:
Semantics deals with the literal meaning of words and
the meaning of the way they are combined, which taken together form the core of
meaning, or the starting point from
which the whole meaning of a particular utterance is constructed.
Result/finding:
This
article present the kinds of meaning:
1. Denotation
and sense
The general
point is that linguistic expressions are linked in virtue of their meaning to
parts of the world around us, which is the basis of our use of language to
convey information about reality. The denotation of an expression is the part
of reality the expression is linked to.
The second way
of giving the meaning of a word, commonly used in dictionaries, is to
paraphrase it,
The most widely
discussed form of the sense/denotation distinction is the means‘the blue train’
is to say that the French expression and the English expression have the same
sense.sense/reference distinction. An expression which denotes just
one individual is said to refer to that individual. Titles and proper
names are common referring expressions
2. Lexical
and Structural Meaning
lexical
meaning, which is the meaning of the individual words.
Structural
meaning mainly comprises the meaning derived from the syntactic structure of an
expression, for example: , which is the meaning of the way the words are
combined.
3. Categorematic
expressions, which include the vast majority of words, are the descriptive
words such as nouns, adjectives and verbs.
Strengthness
and Weakness
Strength : You
can know more about modern linguistic especially semantics by read this. And
the example is enough to make us understands. And there are some tips that have
given by authors.
Weakness : this
article too long and very tedious to read.
Conclusion
From this
article we know Current research suggests that the generalization expressed in
any version of thematic roles theory is basically correct – arguments of verbs
do fall into broad semantic classes, although the relevant classes are not
always those identified by the traditional thematic relations introduced here.
SUSI LESTARI
Title : Frame semantics a brief introduction
Author : Diego Gavagna
From : Aarhus
University, 2013
Pages : 12
Content
It tries to give a comprehensive explanation on how meanings are
structured and associated to words in a semantic structure and how these
provide access to our conceptual system, the inventory of structured knowledge
that we use to navigate the world.This view gives account for relations between
words that cannot just be ascribed to structural semantic relations like
hyponymy, synonymy orantonymy. Instead, it describes the interdependencies
between words based on background knowledge that humans acquire through
experience and store in long-term memory.
Result/Findings
Frame semantics can be thought of as the effort to understand what
reason a speech community might have found for creating the category
represented by the word, and to explain the word’s meaning by presenting and
clarifying that reason.
From these word, beside the systemic interrelations between words
and between the respective underlying concepts, emerges one further
characteristic of frame semantics,namely, that knowledge is grounded in human
interaction with others and with the world.Thus, frames are prior expectations
and knowledge about the world that is the whole time strengthen, weakened and
transformed according to the information our brain receives from the perceptive
senses.
So that boy would be defined as [human], [male], [young]. girl
would be described as [human],[minus male], [young].The necessary and
sufficient condition for it would be [human],[male], [adult], [minus married].
However this definition would include as bachelor also the Pope, proving that
the accuracy of the definition is strongly undermined.
Strength and
Weakness
Strength : the author
analysis is something new that we found of many article about semantic. I am so
interested with the Frame semantics. The example is great. There are some
pictures here. The letter that author used is so neat and will be easy to
understand.
Weakness: the author said his dissertation is can not be considered
exhaustive, but he have tried to give described the main terms of the theory.
Conclusion
Many other authors have developed this framework, including the
remarkable attempt by Lakoff & Johnson in describing the concept of
reframing in political discourse based on frame semantics’ approach and the
role of metaphors and metonymy in natural languages. Lakoff’s approach is particularly
interesting because it is not just an analytical framework but very much also a
set of practical tools usable in everyday life.Another important contribution
is the one proposed by Fauconier and Turner describing the characteristics of
mental spaces that pose the ground for blending theory.
This article give an account for frame semantics approach to
knowledge representations as described by Fillmore and the researchers that
have developed his approach, including Langacker’s domains’ description and Barsalou
perceptual symbols.
