Skip to main content

Semantic theories

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?

Comments

Lauren said…
I tutored an undergraduate semantics subject last year and had a great time introducing students to a variety of semantic theories. The course included NSM, binary feature, componential, cognitive semantics and things like prototype theory - not to mention an introduction to issues in dictionaries.

I really liked showing them a little bit form each area, showing them the upsides and pit-falls and then moving on. For me, the important thing is that different semantic theories are like different tools in your tool kit. NSM is great for emotions, prototype for concrete entities, BFA for kin terms or pronouns and cognitive stuff for metaphors. No one theory is going to solve everything, and those that try and preach that theirs' can often fall over at some point.

Try implementing a few and see what works best for you and your problems!
4:16 pm
Jangari said…
I used a bit of watered-down Jackendovian semantics for my honours thesis, which I found very useful as a tool to link semantic and morphological/syntactic levels of grammar. It was nowhere near as formal, complex or powerful as the syllogistic logic-based semantics that's normally practised in the US though.

As for NSM, I second Lauren; good for giving explications of emotions, speech acts, and so forth, but useless as a semantics-syntax interface.
2:41 pm
Greg Dickson said…
Thanks for the comments.

I think my issue is that I'm not convinced that semantic theories are "tools". They feel more akin to "games" to me. :-(
12:32 am
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Oscar-winning Coda and its (mis)representation of interpreting (or, why I almost walked out of the cinema)

Ok so I'm a linguist not a movie critic but I am an avid movie-goer - part of the generation of Australians raised by Margaret and David to appreciate cinema and think critically about it. (I've even reviewed a few things on this blog: Short-doco Queen of the Desert , short film Lärr and some discussion of the brilliant Croker Island Exodus here ).  At this years Oscars, the film Coda surprised many by taking out Best Picture. It seems like few people have even had a chance to see it. Here in little ol' Katherine, we have a brilliant film society at our local Katherine 3 cinema, where each fortnight we get to watch something a bit different. In late 2021, I had the chance to see Coda there, long before it was thought of as an Oscar contender. Now that Coda is being talked about more than ever before, I wanted to share my experience of watching the film - especially because in one scene in particular, I was so angry that I genuinely considered walking out of the cinema -...
3 comments
Luk mowa >>

Stirring quotes from Aboriginal educators

Today I've been working on my submission for the Federal Government's Inquiry into Language Learning in Indigenous Communities.  As part of my research for my submission, I was searching for quotes from Aboriginal educators in support of bilingual education and Indigenous language education.  When I assembled the quotes, I found it pretty much heartbreaking to see the passion that is there when at the same time Indigenous language education is being denied because of the NT Government's ridiculous Compulsory Teaching in English for the First Four Hours policy.  Here's what I found today: What we want is both-way teaching in the school – not only for two hours a week but everyday there should be both-way teaching… That policy of speaking English only at the school is the wrong thing – it is not good for our children … they will forget their language  - Rembarrnga speaker Miliwanga Sandy (Beswick Community) (in Gosford 2009). I am a qualified bilingual teache...
Post a Comment
Luk mowa >>

Subtle features of Aboriginal English that I love: agreeing or confirming by copying

Linguists aren't supposed to play favourites, but I love Aboriginal English. Maybe because it's what the love of my life speaks and separating language from people and society isn't a realistic prospect. I'm lucky to regularly be around Aboriginal people speaking English in all sorts of ways and privileged to have insights into some of the more subtle ways in which Aboriginal ways of using English differ from the suburban white English I grew up speaking.  I want to share some of these more subtle features. Not just because I am fond of them but also because they seem to be features that escape the attention of most academic discussions of Aboriginal English / Aboriginal ways of using English. I'm going to skip over the complexities of what Aboriginal English is (and isn't) and also if/why that label is worth using at all (a chapter I wrote on Aboriginal English(es) dips into some of that discussion - email me if you want a copy). For brevity's sake, let...
18 comments
Luk mowa >>