1. Introduction
The goal of this seminar paper is to pinpoint the relationship of semantic meaning and logic; as the name suggests. However, to achieve this, one must be acquainted with both topics; i.e., one must understand how meaning and logic function inside their scientific disciplines – semantics and philosophy, respectively. After briefly explaining the key issues of meaning and logic, the main hypothesis will be discussed; that is to say how meaning and logic go hand in hand, therefore, having one without the other is basically impossible. This is followed by a conclusion which will summarise and explain the importance of this paper.
To be able to understand the relationship between meaning and logic and how one is bound to the other, implies that one has to be able to grasp the basic concepts of meaning and logic. That is to say that without meaning, logic cannot exist and this seminar paper will try to further explain this.
2. Meaning as the Centre of Semantics
The study of meaning is foremost discussed in linguistics, philosophy and psychology. As a subfield of linguistics, semantics primarily discusses the study of meaning through various units of discourse. Furthermore, linguistic semantics devotes its study to organise and express meanings. Philosophy or rather, philosophy of language focusses, among other things, on the nature of meaning and is often regarded as a part of logic. As for psychology, one of the questions it concerns itself with is the way the human mind pursues meaning (Kreidler, p. 2, 3).
In this seminar paper, the main study and topic of concern is semantics, while it is closely related to logics, which is why it will free itself from psychology and philosophy in a broad sense.
By a definition, the...
... middle of paper ...
...in question? And how can anyone think logically when they do not even know the concept behind that they are thinking about? The answer here is obvious; there is no logical thinking if there is no meaning behind the thought.
The theme of this paper should definitely be further contemplated, because it seems that the main points discussed in it were only able to scratch the surface of the relationship in question. Theories of truth and meaning, sense relations and entailment, connotation, the law of identity and the everyday usage are only some of the issues concerning the notions of logic and meaning. Even though the points in this paper might make others think about the possibilities that they never thought were imaginable or they might evoke a new, never before seen interest; it is clear that it was written more from a contemplative view than anything else.
In our world today, everyone has a different way of interpretation. Interpretation ranges from person to person and varies with every artifact that we interpret. A red octagon to some may mean to stop while to others it may have no meaning. A poem or song may have one meaning to one person and a completely different meaning to another person. To help uncover the reasoning behind an artifact a rhetorical analysis can be utilized. When one utilizes a rhetorical analysis, it will result in their interpretation of the artifact.
The dictionary term and understanding for the word ‘logic’ is “of sound thinking and proof by reasoning” (Merriam-Webster, 2009). Logic is the examination of the methods and doctrine used to determine ‘correct’ from ‘incorrect’ and is used in the structure of an argument. Allied to critical thinking, logic has a place and holds a relationship that reflects the thought process yet; critical thinking has a more diverse standard of questioning relative to developing both intellectual and emotional queries that can better evaluate reason.
The logic generally taught to English-speaking students is symbolic logic. How faithful is it when employed as a representation of the connectives they use and will use in their ordinary conversation and in most of their intellectual activity, at least if they are not mathematicians? How fruitful for their education? Is there a logic more faithful and likely to be more fruitful? A conference inviting us to relate philosophy and education makes those questions especially opportune.
This essay will consist in an exposition and criticism of the Verification Principle, as expounded by A.J. Ayer in his book Language, Truth and Logic. Ayer, wrote this book in 1936, but also wrote a new introduction to the second edition ten years later. The latter amounted to a revision of his earlier theses on the principle.It is to both accounts that this essay shall be referring.
Saul Kripke and W.V. Quine argue that there are no facts about meaning. Perhaps their strongest argument for their rejection of this claim is through their accounts that facts are determinate by rules and that meaning is lost within translation. Kripke depends on facts about rules for his skeptical solution for Wittgenstein’s account that every course of action is made in accord with a rule. Quine basis his argument on the use of translation; he claims that there are no facts about meaning because there is no correct translation of one sentence into another. In this paper, I will argue that in the accounts of both Kripke and Quine, Kripke provides us with a substitution which makes us a little less worrisome about falling completely into skepticism than that of Quine’s account, I will then provide a possible resolution that can assist in dissolving Quine’s perturbing skepticism.
...ty requires a certain qualification on the combination of names in a proposition. This requirement cannot be fulfilled by any model of meaning that does not incorporate Wittgenstein’s context principle. Wittgenstein is acutely aware that to say how the character of the name restricts its use in a proposition is impossible. Consequently, he argues that this can be seen in the behavior of names in a proposition; by observing names in the context of a proposition, we learn their meaning without it being told to us in the manner that the aforementioned models attempt to do.
on the ability of the thinker to be able to successfully think logically. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, logic is defined as "the science of reasoning, proof, thinking, or inference." Therefore, being able to think logically would assist in one's critical thinking abilities. Logic is not tainted by human emotion, and is therefore can be considered a reliable tool to accompany the critical thinking process.
A logically self-contradictory utterance is not only false, it cannot possibly describe anything. Therefore, it may also be called an impossible description. A tautological utterance, on the other hand, says something true, but it supplies no new information about the world. Therefore, from a common sense point of view, it is a superfluous description. There are at least, I will show, three other kinds of utterances which adequately can be called impossible descriptions and three which can be called superfluous descriptions. Only views which belong ...
The problem of substitutivity has always been a thorn in the side of the study of semantic logic. Why does it sometimes appear that terms that refer to identical objects cannot be replaced with each other in propositions without altering the truth value or meaning of said proposition? Leibniz's Law would seem to ensure that we could perform such an action without anything significant having changed, but this is clearly not so. I intend to look at the history, not only of this problem, but of the theories that have created an atmosphere in which these questions can be contemplated. Finally, I will offer some of my own insights and perceived problems.
...told that context is crucial. But how and why is it crucial? Which sides of context are applicable to which types of text? If the contextual features are interdependently activated in an analysis, then an alteration in one of these features will automatically distress the importance of the others. Nevertheless, there arises a problem, as to what type of text linguistic analysis should deliver a more considerable basis for interpretation. Interpretation, hence, is the procedure of developing a discourse from a text. Interpretation will constantly be a function of the connection of text and context. Irrespectively of how meticulous the analysis of a specific text might be, the textual features must be contextually relevant. If that is the case, then we need to investigate how different contexts can influence the same text and give rise to various interpretations.
Truth is essentially divided into two main types of truth. There is empirical truth that is what is observed, what can be tangibly learned from observation. For an example we look at, Starbucks makes coffee and other hot beverages. This is a form of empirical truth, which is what is observed. Other than the empirical truth, there is truth. Truth is defined by us, by our beliefs, experiences, observations. This is the problem that there is with the nature of truth, because our experiences, and beliefs may differ from someone else giving them different truth. There are several theories on truth, and they are the Correspondence Theory, the Semantic Theory, the Deflationary Theory, the Coherence Theory, and the Pragmatic Theory. In this paper, we will be focusing on the Correspondence Theory and the Coherence Theory ( insert citation, IEP website).
Semantics is the study of meaning; it concerns itself specifically with logical and conceptual meaning. Specificity is necessary in this case, as the search for meaning has been the remit of various fields of research and study for centuries - each defining “meaning” according to their own needs. Whilst it is difficult to justify such a demarcation it is nonetheless necessary, to separate the fields of “real world” knowledge from meaning in language itself. Broadening the definition of meaning too widely, as Leech accuses Bloomfield of, would result in a vast area of knowledge impossible to pierce in any systematic manner (qtd. In Bloomfeld 9). Thus, Leech concerns himself primarily with the science of language, that is, the way in which words and sentences work to together in order to relate to the real world actions, objects and processes. He seeks then to break this still, very broad definition into manageable parts recognizing seven different types of meaning which work together to allow effective communication through language. The first, and of primary importance is conceptual meaning. The other five falling under the banner of associative meanings, are connotative meaning, social meaning, affective meaning, reflected meaning and collocative meaning. With the last being thematic meaning.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus evolved as a continuation of and reaction to Bertrand Russell and G Frege’s conceptions of logic, which Russell has left unexplained. Wittgenstein developed a theory of language that was designed to explain the nature of logical necessity. For Wittgenstein, a factual proposition is true or false with no third alternative. He endorses a ‘picture’ theory of meaning: propositions are meaningful insofar as they ‘picture’ facts or states of affairs: if their structure mirrors the structure of the world. The book addresses the central problems of philosophy which deals with the world, language and thought, and proposes a solution to these problems which is grounded in logic and in the nature of representation. Language, thought and reality share a common logical structure, so understanding the structure of the language allows u...
After, one semester trying to understand what is logic about and how it works, finally, I understood that Logic is always present in our life.
Prarthana,S. & Prema, K. (2012). Role of Semantics in the Organization of Mental Lexicon. Language in India.259-277.