This is one for the linguists... A naive question I'd like to put out there:
I really enjoy semantics: thinking and writing about word meanings, cross-linguistic translatability and all the other juicy stuff you get when you really try and pin down meanings of words, morphemes, phrases etc. which are usually tantalisingly slippery and have lovely fuzzy boundaries.
But!
When it comes to semantic theories, I just haven't come across one that I've liked. I've looked a little bit at NSM and am now learning a bit about frame semantics, but theories like this bother me. They all seem to have quite a lot of limitations, so much so that I wonder how useful they really are. Why can't we just write detailed semantic descriptions of words/morphemes/phrases etc. and leave it at that?
This really is an issue I'm grappling with because my PhD thesis will hopefully be a lot about semantics, but I have this chip on my shoulder about semantic theories.
Thought?Comments?Feelings?
I really enjoy semantics: thinking and writing about word meanings, cross-linguistic translatability and all the other juicy stuff you get when you really try and pin down meanings of words, morphemes, phrases etc. which are usually tantalisingly slippery and have lovely fuzzy boundaries.
But!
When it comes to semantic theories, I just haven't come across one that I've liked. I've looked a little bit at NSM and am now learning a bit about frame semantics, but theories like this bother me. They all seem to have quite a lot of limitations, so much so that I wonder how useful they really are. Why can't we just write detailed semantic descriptions of words/morphemes/phrases etc. and leave it at that?
This really is an issue I'm grappling with because my PhD thesis will hopefully be a lot about semantics, but I have this chip on my shoulder about semantic theories.
Thought?Comments?Feelings?
0 Mayu kana' jhek rasarah jhek kun becah malolo tang blog rea mara komentari blog rea se ajudul "Semantic theories"