This document discusses different views of semantics and the relationship between words and their meanings. It dismisses the view that words are simply names for objects in the world. While this view may apply to some nouns, it cannot account for other parts of speech like verbs, adjectives, and prepositions. The relationship between words and their meanings is more complex, as a single word can refer to abstract concepts, non-physical objects, and even different physical objects. Grammarians use terms like "abstract things" but the view that all words name objects in the world is an oversimplification that fails to explain the full complexity of language and semantics.

1. THE SCOPE OF
SEMANTICS
(1)

2. In the coming chapters
We need to consider
various aspects of
semantics.
To do this, the way has to
be cleared by

3. (1) Discussing (and
dismissing) two
unsatisfactory views of
semantics.
WHY
They provide no
solution to semantic

4. Note:
These two views may
seem at first
plausible, but they
are really not.

5. (2) Attempting to set out
some of the more
important distinctions
that have to be made.

7. Naming
Language is a communication
system.
The concept of the signifier and the
signified is central to that system.
BUT
There is a basic problem here

9. An ancient view comes
from Plato

10. 1. The signifier is a word in the language.
2. The signified is an object in the world.
3. The signifier:
stands for
refers to
denotes
the signified.
(Words are names or lables for things)

11. Taken at face value:
No doubt this is true.
Children learn any of their
words by naming things.
BUT

12. There are problems:
What part of speech is
this view more likely
to apply to?
NOUNS

13. How do
grammarians
define nouns?

14. Word that names
•A Person
An Idea
A Thing

15. Names of
things,
people,
places
and
concepts

16. What about other parts
of speech?
Adjectives:
Take colours as an
example:

18. Colours are names.
Colours can be adjectives.
What is your favourite colour?Do you dram in colour?green bananas

19. With reference to the
relationship between “the
signifier” and “the signified ”
What about other adjectives?

20. Can they be used as a
label to identify
something that they
denote?

21. Take the examples of:
fearful,
interesting,
clever
(in a clever idea)

22. What about verbs?
Is it possible to
identify what is
'named' by a verb?

23. With nouns we can often draw
a picture of the object that is
denoted.
A boy

24. BUT
What about a verb like
‘run’?

25. We can attempt to
illustrate what it
denotes with a picture
of a boy running

27. There are two difficulties that arise:
1. We are not presented
separately with a boy and
with 'running'.
We need a fairly sophisticated
method of separating the
two.

28. 2. We can distinguish
the boy and 'what
he is doing‘.

29. The boy
What he is doing

30. But it is far more difficult to
identify precisely what are
the essential characteristics
of what is denoted by the
verb than what is denoted
by the noun.

31. Does running
involve only
the movement
of the feet or
are the arms
involved too?
Does it
necessarily
involve a
change of
position?
 Is the
speed
relevant?

32. Clearly there is
not something
that can easily
be recognised
and identified
as 'running'

33. This is ‘run’.
What about:
remember
like
see

34. What about the
other “parts of
speech”

35. prepositions
conjunctions
pronouns
Etc.

36. What about nouns such as:
If we hold the theory
of ‘naming’ true, can
it be applied only to
nouns?

37. unicorn

38. ghost

39. fairy

40. gremlin

41. Do they denote objects in the
world?
Can we distinguish two kinds
of world:
the ‘real world’ and the
‘other world’?
What will happen if we do?

42. We must admit that words are not
just names of things, and it must
involve some fairly sophisticated
explanation of the way in which
we can move from giving names
to objects in the world to giving
names to objects that do not
exist

43. What about
•The digital world?

44. What about
Virtual reality?

45. What about
Cyberspace?

46. Forget about the ‘other world’.
Aren’t there nouns that
do not refer to
imaginary things but do
not refer to physical
objects at all?

47. Can we identify the
object to be named by:
love
hate
inspiration

48. •What do grammarians call
such words?
•“abstract things’’
•Why do they call them
things?
•Because they have nouns
corresponding to them.

49. We fall in a trap of a circular
definition:
Nouns refer to things.
Things are named by
nouns.

50. Another problem:
•Even with some
identifiable physical
objects, the meaning is not
the same with its
denotation:

51. Morning starEvening star

53. Another difficulty:
Visible objects in the
world around us often
seem to denote a whole
set of rather different
objects.