SlideShare a Scribd company logo
1 of 17
Semantic book
A
R
R
A
N
G
E
D
By:
Name: Lewin M. Simarmata (12120157)
Group : E
Faculty of Teacher Training an Education
HKBP Nommensen
Pematangsiantar
2013
Acknowledgement
First of all, I would like to thank to Almighty God because still give me mercy and
blessing, for helping me to arrange this papers
I would also like to thank to my lecturer, Sir David Berthony Manalu M.Pd, whose guidance has
enlightened me to complete this assignment.
I am arranging this paper to comply my last task about Reading III. In this paper I try to provide
about analysis scientific book “Introducing to semantic and introducing English semantic”. The
analysis such as, theories, research, experiences, and argument.
Although I have try to make this papers with maximum, but I am sure this papers is not perfect,
and when I do this paper, I am always stay up all night, because I have much assignment from
another lesson and I must do it one by one, but I always try to finish this paper soon, if this paper
finish I shall fell free of worry. Because of it, I need criticism and suggestion to make this papers
become the best.
I hope this paper have beneficial from all of people, special to reader and the last I say thanks
Pematang siantar, December 2013
Composer
i
Table of content
Acknowledgment……………………………………………………………………
Table of content……………………………………………………………………..
1. Introduction.
1.1.Identities of book 1……………………………………………………………...
1.2. Identities of book 2……………………………………………………………..
2. Reading summary.
2.1. Reading summary of book 1……………………………………………………
2.2. Reading summary of book 2……………………………………………………
3. Evaluation
3.1. Evaluation of book 1……………………………………………………………
3.2. Evaluation of book 2……………………………………………………………
Introduction
Book’s identities:
Identities of book 1
Title : Introducing to semantics
Writer : Nick Riemer.
Year of publication : first published in print format 2010
ISBN : - ISBN- 13 978-0-511-67746-5
(EBook (Net library)
-ISBN-13-978-0-521-85192-3
Hardback
-ISBN-13 978-0-521-61741-3
Paperback
Identities of book 2
Title : Introducing English semantics
Writer : Charles W. Kreidler
Year of publication : First published 1998
ISBN : -ISBN 0-203-02115-0 Master e-book
-ISBN 0-203-17370-8 (Adobe reader Format)
-ISBN 0-415-18063-5 (hbk).
i
-ISBN 0-415-18064-3 (pbk).
Purpose of writing reading report:
 To complied my last task about reading III.
 To motivated the writer to read scientific text or scientific book.
 To indicate the writer to do research and selecting theorist
Technique(s) and step used while reading book 1and book 2.
 Pre reading : Preview and Predicting
 While reading : Scanning and Skimming
 Post reading : make conclusion
Reading summary of book 1
Theory
 For the purposes of linguistics, we can isolate three particularly important factors relevant
to the study of meaning: the psychology of speakers, which creates and interprets
language expression as projected by the language user’s psychology and the linguistic
expression its self. As Ogden and Richard points outs, these three points constitute the
semiotic triangle.(1949:10)
 Tredennick distinguish two types of definition: Definition of the essence of a thing (real
definition) Definition of the meaning of a word (nominal definition). Most linguists take
nominal definition to be the type that is of interest to linguistic research.(1960:90)
 The relation between language and context are not limited to those in which a linguistic
expression describes a preexisting world. The assertion of facts about the world is just
one of the acts which we can use language to perform. As noted by Grice we also ask
questions, issue orders and make requests, in these types of speech act, truth is not a
relevant parameter in the appreciation of meaning.(1989)
 As noted by diesel, all languages have at least two deictically contrastive demonstratives:
proximal is usually called this demonstrative and distal is usually called the that
demonstrative (1999:13)
 As noted by Givon, the fundamental role of assertion language can be seen as a
consequence of four large-scale features of human social organization and the types of
talk-exchange it engenders: first, communicative topics are often outside the immediate,
perceptually available range, second, much pertinent information, third, the rapidity of
change in the human environment, and the last, the participants.(1984:248)
i
 Austin’s theory of speech acts distinguished three types of act we perform in any
utterance: first, the locutionary act is the act of saying something: the act of expressing
the basic, literal meanings of the words chosen. Second, The illocutionary act is the act
performed in saying something: the act of using words to achieve such goals as warning,
promising, guaranteeing, etc. third, The perlocutionary act is the act performed by saying
something: the act of producing an effect in the hearer by means of the utterance.
(1962:145-147)
 As noted by Nyckees there five important types of lexical relation have been identified.
Synonymy, antonymy, meronymy, hyponymy and taxonomy. They play a determining
role in linguistic intercomprehension.(1998)
 As noted by Murphy, some words seem to have more than one antonym, depending on
the dimension of contrast involved (girl has both boy and woman, depending on the
whether the dimension of contrast is sex or age; sweet has both bitter and sour)
(2003:173)
 As Davidson says, the fact that a single linguistic structure may serve an unlimited
number of contextual communicative ends points up a fundamental feature of human
language that he calls the autonomy of linguistic meaning. (1973:73)
 “The unit of linguistic communication is not, as has generally been supposed, the
symbol, word or sentences, or even the token of the symbol, word or sentences, but
rather the production or issuance of the symbol or word or sentence in the performance
of the speech act.” (Searle 1969:16)
 Grice distinguished four general maxims in conversation; they are the maxim of quality,
the maxim of quantity, the maxim of relevance and the maxim of manner. Not all the
maxim have equal importance (1989:27)
 In the word of Jackendoff (2002:293),”we must consider the domain of linguistic
semantics to be continuous with human conceptualization as a whole”.
 In the word of Langacker 1987:98), studying linguistic meaning is the same thing as
study in the nature of human conceptual structure, a cover all term for our thoughts,
concepts, perceptions, images, and mental experience in general.
 On the conceptual theory of metaphor view, lakoff says that, metaphor is a cognitive
process which helps us to conceptualize our experience by setting up correspondences
between easily understood things like burdens and hard to understand things like
obligations. Metaphor is a cognitive operation first and foremost. (1987:416-461)
 For sperber and Wilson, in contrast, language-use is an ostensive-inferential process: the
speaker ostensively provides the hearer with evidence of their meaning in the form of
words and, combined with the context, this linguistic evidence enables the hearer to
infer the speaker’s meaning.(1995)
 “The relevance of an input for an individual at a given time is a positive function of the
cognitive benefits he would gain from processing it, and a negative function of the
processing effort needed to achieve these benefits.” (Sperber and Wilson 2002:14)
 For Carnap, pragmatic consideration like reference assignment, scope interpretation and
implicatures like the temporal subsequency reading of and may enter into the truth-
conditional approach to meaning, then, the boundary between semantics and pragmatics
is porous, acts considered as prototypically part of the domain of pragmatics are
necessary to the very calculation of truth-conditional meaning.(1942:42)
 Litowitz and Evens isolate four different types of meronymy in English: the relation of
the functional component to its whole, such as the relation between heart and body; the
relation of a segment to a preexisting whole (slice-cake); the relation of a member to a
collection or an element to a set (sheep-flock); and the relation they call subset-set(fruit-
food) (1988)
 For example of hyponymy as noted by Wierzbicka (1984),every (male) policeman is
necessarily someone’s son, and not every member of the category someone’s son, is a
policeman, but this doesn’t mean that a male policeman is a ‘kind of son’, and wouldn’t
want to describe the relation between male policeman and someone’s son.
 As noted by Atran (1999:121), consider for example the partial taxonomy animal-
mammal-cow. Learning that one cow is susceptible to the disease but not that all
mammal or animals are.
 Ullmann (1972:141) points out that one of the few places where full word synonymy
seems reasonably common is technical vocabulary, giving as example the fact that in
medicine inflammation of the blind gut can be synonymously referred to as either
caecitis or typhlistis.
i
 Murphy says that everybody and everyone are not lexical synonyms since they are not
mutually substitutable in every context.
 As noted by Halliday and Matthiessen (2004:117), semantics has nothing to do with
truth, it is concerned with consensus about validity, and consensus is negotiated in
dialogue.
 According to Rosck, prototypical category members are those which share the most
attributes with other members of their category, and the fewest with members of other
categories, bird , for instance , might be defined through attributes such as ‘egg-laying’,
‘flaying’, ’small’, ‘vertebrate’, ’pecks food’, ‘winged’, ‘high-pitched call’, ‘builds nets’
and so on. (1978:38)
 “The kinds of features that subjects associate with certain concepts vary widely and
almost without limit when one varies the experimental context in which they are tested.
Rather than accessing a fixed set of features in conjunction with each concept, there is
apparently no limit to the features that even a single subject associates with a certain
concept depending on the context in question “ (khalidi 1995:404)
 As kneale and kneale explain (1962), logic investigates the properties of valid
arguments and chains of reasoning, and specifies the conditions which arguments must
meet in order to be valid. It is important to linguists for the principle reasons: first, its
constitutes one of the oldest and most developed traditions of the study of meaning.
Second, It is at the heart of formal and computational theories of semantics, third certain
logical concepts provide and interesting point of contrast with their natural language
equivalents.
 Lyons says that, meaning postulates are not just limited to the formalization of the
specific lexical relations, they can also be used to express more particular interrelations
between particular words.(1963)
 Bertrand Russell (1905), Russell’s theory of definite descriptions offers an analysis in
logical term of the meaning of propositions involving the English determiner the,
according to which such propositions contain disguised quantifications.
 Pustejovsky’s theory is that each of these roles can operate independently within the
semantics of a clause. For example, we know that a fast car is one that moves quickly,
and a fast motorway is one on which cars can move quickly, since fast applies to the
telic role of the noun: the role that refers to the function or purpose which the referent
fulfils. (1995:421-423)
 Huddleston says that, the categories of semantic criteria interpretations of the part of
speech like noun (word used as the name of a living being or lifeless thing.), verb (word
which denotes action or a state of being), and adjective (word which denotes a property
of characteristic of some object, person or thing.) (1983)
 Many languages show widespread multicategoriality (roots which may appear as
different parts of speech). Hopper says that, we can think of nouns and verbs as ‘slots’
or contexts available in each clause, each of which comes associated with the
appropriate grammatical machinery. The grammatical slots themselves can be seen as
the carriers of the noun hood or verb hood which the word ends up acquiring.(1988)
 Jackendoff’s theory of semantic representation dispenses completely with theta-roles,
and derives argument structure directly from the semantic of the verb. This means that
the thematic hierarchy can be completely restated in terms of underlying conceptual
configurations. In Jackendoff’s theory of conceptual structure, selectional restrictions
are also specified directly by the conceptual structure: they are not extra information
which needs to be learnt in addition to the meaning of the verbs themselves.(1987,2002)
i
Research
 Keenan says that we can readily imagine situations even in our own society which do not
observe the first maxim of quantity, which stipulates that hearers are to make their
contributions as informative as is required for the current purposes of the
exchange.(1976:218)
 Cruse investigated antonyms meaning long-short, good-bad and hot-cold in English,
French, Turkish, Macedonian, Arabic, and Chinese. For the adjective meaning ‘longer’,
‘shorter’, and ‘bitter’ all language allow an impartial or uncommitted use, suggesting that
antonym behavior may show some cross linguistic uniformity.
 Rosch says that the prototypicality of items within a category can be shown to affect
virtually all of the major dependent variables used as measures in psychological research
for instance category membership of the form ‘An [exemplar] is a [category name]’ (e.g.
‘a robin is a bird’)
 Lakoff (1973) for example of a category, a sentence like a sparrow is a true bird is
perfectly normal, unlike a penguin is a true bird: sparrows, not penguins, are prototypical
exemplars of the category bird. Conversely, technically can only be applied to non-
prototypical category members: a penguin is technically a bird is acceptable, but a
sparrow is technically a bird.
 Rosch point out of the category, that some attributes, like ‘large’ for the category piano,
depend on considerable background knowledge: pianos are large for pieces of furniture,
but small for buildings. It could therefore be objected that attributes like this are not more
basic cognitively than the whole objects to which they belong, and that they cannot be
considered the basic for the categorization. (1978:42)
 Levin and Hovav (2005: 18) observe that, “verb classes are similar in status to natural
classes of sounds in phonology and the elements of meaning which serve to distinguish
among the classes of verbs are similar in status to phonology’s distinctive features.
Furthermore, since these grammatically relevant facets of meaning are viewed as
constituting the interface between a full-fledged representation of meaning and the
syntax, most researchers have assumed that, like the set of distinctive features, the set of
such meaning elements is both universal and relatively small in size.”
Argument
 As Sperber and Wilson’s argument “it is not enough to point out that information may be
carried over from one conceptual process to the next, one would like to know which
information is kept in a short term memory store, which is simply erased”.(1995:138-
139)
 As commented by Lehrer about prototype categorization, “when we look at some of the
detailed lexical descriptions that have been done, the data themselves often have forced
the investigator to posit fuzzy boundaries and partial class inclusion, implicitly
acknowledging something like prototype theory”. (1990:380).
 Jackendoff claims that a decomposition method is necessary to explore conceptual
structure, in which the concepts underlying word meaning are broken down into their
smallest elements: conceptual primitives envisaged as the semantic equivalents of
phonological features (1978)
 Hopper and Thompson suggest that parts of speech can be understood as prototype
categories defined by their discourse functions. The difference in the grammatical options
available to a given occurrence of a noun or verb correlates with its discourse function in
a given context – the closer the noun or verb is to playing its prototypical discourse role,
the closer it comes to exhibiting the full range of grammatical possibilities of its class.
(1984:710-711)
 Chung and Timberlake (1985:204-205) says that, tense is the name of the class of
grammatical markers used to signal the location of situations in time. Three basic
temporal divisions are relevant to the representation of time in language: what is
happening now, what will happen afterwards, and what has already happened.
 Dowty (1991) suggested about the problem with thematic roles that, the different
participant roles are cluster concepts, like Roschean prototypes, and that thematic roles
are based on entailments of verb-meanings.
i
Reading summary book 2
Theory
 “language is purely human and non instinctive method of communicating ideas,
emotions, and desires by means of a system of voluntary symbols” (Sapir, 1939)
 “Linguistic is a scientific study of language or languages” (T.A. Ridwan, 1982:10)
 Allan Keith says, linguistic semantics is an attempt to explicate the knowledge of any
speakers of language which allows that speaker to communicate facts, feelings, intentions
and product of the imagination to other speaker and to understand what they
communicate to him or her.(1986)
 “Semantics is the study of linguistic meaning. It is concerned with that sentences and
other linguistic objects express, not with the arrangement of their syntactic parts or with
their pronunciation” (Katz, 1972:1)
 “Meaning signifies any and all phrases of sign-process (the status of being a sign, the
interpreted, the fact of denoting, the signification.) and frequently suggest mental and
valuation process as well” (Morris, 1946:19)
 “We can define the meaning of speech-form accurately when this meaning has to do with
some matter of which we posses scientific knowledge. We can define the names of
plants, or animals by means of the technical botany or zoology, but we have no precise
way of defining love or hate and these latter are in the great majority” (Bloomfield 1933)
 As a noted by George Dillon (1977) about demonstrating semantic knowledge, he says
that speaker of language have an implicit knowledge about what is meaningful in their
language, and its easy to show this in our account of what that knowledge is, it is ten
aspects of any speakers semantic knowledge, anomaly, paraphrase, synonymy, semantic
feature, antonymy, contradiction, ambiguity, adjacency pairs, entailment and
presupposition.
 Lenneberg (1967),Clark (1977:295-430), says that processes like making question and
negative statements are acquired, processes that go beyond a mere reflection of what is
in the environment and make it possible for the child to express himself and interact with
others.
 As noted by Clark (1996:121) that speaker and hearer use the same vocabulary, they have
similar pronunciations, and they have the same ways of putting words together in the
sentences.
 As Fillmore (1979:781) put it, we need to know not only what the speaker says but also
what he talking about, why he bothers to say it, and why he says it the way he does.
Comprehension is not just talking in words, as listeners we use our background
information to interpret the message.
 Clark and Clark 1977:49) says that, as a listeners we begin by identifying the phonetic
message and through the phonetic message identify the semantic message.
 It is important to distinguish between linguistic meaning, as a point out of Schifrin
(1994), what is communicated by particular pieces of language and utterance meaning,
what is a certain individual meant by saying such and such in a particular piece, time and
to certain others individuals.
 A mentalistic theory about meaning Ogden and Richards (1923), an attempt to explain
meaning in term of what is in people’s mind. Meaning are expressed by units that may be
smaller than words and expressed in units sentences that are large than words, meaning is
more than denotation, also express opinions, favorable and unfavorable.
 Hjelmslev (1971:109-10) pointed out that among the Eskimos a dog is an animal that
used for pulling a sled, the Parsees regard dogs as nearly sacred. Hjelmslev added that in
certain societies the flesh of dogs is part of the human diet and in others societies it is not.
 Austin says that, in every speech we can distinguish three things, what is said, the
utterance, can be called the locution, what the speakers intends to communicate to the
addressee is the illocution, the massage that the addressee gets, his interpretation of what
the speaker says is the perlocution. (1962)
 As theory of grice, such communication is guided by four factors, called maxims, the
maxims of quantity requires the speaker to give as much information as the addressee
i
need but no more, the maxim of relevance requires us, as speakers, to make our
utterances relative to the discourse going on and the contexts in which they occur, the
maxims of manner is to be orderly and clear and to avoid ambiguity, the maxim of
quality is to say only what one believes to be true. (1975-1978)
 A stative predicate, according to Comrie (1976:49), a stative predicate is typically
durative in aspect, it is relates a situation that does not change during the time when the
predication is valid.
 Vandler (1967) proposed a four-way classification of predicates as stative, activity,
achievement and accomplishment predicates. Stative and activity predicate are atelic, and
achievement predicate are telic.
 Vlach (1981:279) says that, the progressive form indicates that the activity predicated is
distributed over a period of time with an implied endpoint.
 Kiparsky and kiparsky (1970) point out that certain predicates, among them the verb
forget, are factivy. A factivy predicate has a predication as one of its argument and
whether affirmative or negative, it presupposes the truth of that predication.
 Native speakers of English learn these verbs so early in life that they are unaware of
having learned them. As Joos (1964:147-8) points out, a child of four may ask the
meaning of duty but is not likely to ask about the meaning of must.
 Perceptual verbs, also called ‘sensory verbs,’ express the sensations that we receive from
outside stimuli through our five sense, as a noted by Viberg (1983:123-6), our
perceptions are reactions to stimuli: reflected light strikes our retinas, vibrations impinge
on our eardrum, other sensations affect the nerves in our tongue, skin, or nose.
 Note that in such sentences the person affected, named by the subject, is not affected by
the perception of an entity nor of a simultaneous event but by a mental reaction to what
has been observed. (kirsner and Thompson 1976:205-8)
 Adjectives derived from verbs are either active- subjective or passive objective
(Magnusson and persson 1986:195-8). An envious person is one who envies, an enviable
person is one that we envy, one to be envied. Envious is active subjective, enviable is
passive objective.
Evaluation
Evaluation 3.1
Strengths and weakness of book 1
Strengths: 1. this book has complied explained about the topic
 This book has complied explained about the semantic
 This book is clear and comprehensive
 It contains more 200 exercises and discussion question design to test and deepen reader’s
understanding.
 It is clearly explain and contrasts different theoretical approaches, summarizes, and
provides helpful suggestion for further reading.
 This book also highlights the connections between semantics and the wider study of
human language in psychology, anthropology and linguistic itself.
Weakness:
 This book has much difficult word.
Strengths and weakness of book 2
Strengths:
 This book has a wealth of exercise
 Discusses the nature of language
 Includes a glossary of term
Weakness:
i
 This book has much difficult word.
Recommendation of book 1 and book 2
This book “introducing English semantics” will be an essential text for any student which
following an introductory course in semantics, and also for lecturer or teacher. We can read the
book whenever we want to read it and in wherever you want.

More Related Content

What's hot

Coherence, cohesion and deixis
Coherence, cohesion and deixisCoherence, cohesion and deixis
Coherence, cohesion and deixisMarizka Parapat
 
Discourse Analysis (Linguistic 101)
Discourse Analysis (Linguistic 101)Discourse Analysis (Linguistic 101)
Discourse Analysis (Linguistic 101)Rain Thorvaldsen
 
Textual cohesion
Textual cohesionTextual cohesion
Textual cohesionmrstovila
 
Differences between spoken and written discourse
Differences between spoken and written discourseDifferences between spoken and written discourse
Differences between spoken and written discourseKhairunnisa' Mohammad
 
Discourse analysis
Discourse analysisDiscourse analysis
Discourse analysisRaul Vargas
 
Discourse analysis
Discourse analysisDiscourse analysis
Discourse analysisMelikarj
 
Discourse Analysis
Discourse AnalysisDiscourse Analysis
Discourse AnalysisAyesha Mir
 
Discourse Analysis for Social Research
Discourse Analysis for Social ResearchDiscourse Analysis for Social Research
Discourse Analysis for Social ResearchDominik Lukes
 
Discourse analysis by gillian brown & george yule
Discourse analysis   by gillian brown & george yuleDiscourse analysis   by gillian brown & george yule
Discourse analysis by gillian brown & george yuleJohn Ykaz
 
Conjunctive cohesion (jorgelina, joselvine)
Conjunctive cohesion (jorgelina, joselvine)Conjunctive cohesion (jorgelina, joselvine)
Conjunctive cohesion (jorgelina, joselvine)rominacheme
 
Lecture 75 Interpreting Discourse
Lecture 75 Interpreting DiscourseLecture 75 Interpreting Discourse
Lecture 75 Interpreting DiscourseUmair Ibne Abid
 
Discourse analysis and vocabulary
Discourse analysis and vocabularyDiscourse analysis and vocabulary
Discourse analysis and vocabularyAzam Almubarki
 
Discourse Analysis
Discourse AnalysisDiscourse Analysis
Discourse Analysistahajoon
 
Skeptical Discourse Analysis for non-Linguists
Skeptical Discourse Analysis for non-LinguistsSkeptical Discourse Analysis for non-Linguists
Skeptical Discourse Analysis for non-LinguistsDominik Lukes
 
6) discourse grammar
6) discourse grammar6) discourse grammar
6) discourse grammarAtaMSaeed
 

What's hot (20)

Coherence, cohesion and deixis
Coherence, cohesion and deixisCoherence, cohesion and deixis
Coherence, cohesion and deixis
 
Discourse Analysis (Linguistic 101)
Discourse Analysis (Linguistic 101)Discourse Analysis (Linguistic 101)
Discourse Analysis (Linguistic 101)
 
Textual cohesion
Textual cohesionTextual cohesion
Textual cohesion
 
2 l2 spoken&written-discourse
2 l2 spoken&written-discourse2 l2 spoken&written-discourse
2 l2 spoken&written-discourse
 
Differences between spoken and written discourse
Differences between spoken and written discourseDifferences between spoken and written discourse
Differences between spoken and written discourse
 
Discourse analysis
Discourse analysisDiscourse analysis
Discourse analysis
 
Discourse Studies
Discourse StudiesDiscourse Studies
Discourse Studies
 
Discourse analysis
Discourse analysisDiscourse analysis
Discourse analysis
 
cohesion
cohesioncohesion
cohesion
 
Cohesion
CohesionCohesion
Cohesion
 
Semantics analysis ppt
Semantics analysis pptSemantics analysis ppt
Semantics analysis ppt
 
Discourse Analysis
Discourse AnalysisDiscourse Analysis
Discourse Analysis
 
Discourse Analysis for Social Research
Discourse Analysis for Social ResearchDiscourse Analysis for Social Research
Discourse Analysis for Social Research
 
Discourse analysis by gillian brown & george yule
Discourse analysis   by gillian brown & george yuleDiscourse analysis   by gillian brown & george yule
Discourse analysis by gillian brown & george yule
 
Conjunctive cohesion (jorgelina, joselvine)
Conjunctive cohesion (jorgelina, joselvine)Conjunctive cohesion (jorgelina, joselvine)
Conjunctive cohesion (jorgelina, joselvine)
 
Lecture 75 Interpreting Discourse
Lecture 75 Interpreting DiscourseLecture 75 Interpreting Discourse
Lecture 75 Interpreting Discourse
 
Discourse analysis and vocabulary
Discourse analysis and vocabularyDiscourse analysis and vocabulary
Discourse analysis and vocabulary
 
Discourse Analysis
Discourse AnalysisDiscourse Analysis
Discourse Analysis
 
Skeptical Discourse Analysis for non-Linguists
Skeptical Discourse Analysis for non-LinguistsSkeptical Discourse Analysis for non-Linguists
Skeptical Discourse Analysis for non-Linguists
 
6) discourse grammar
6) discourse grammar6) discourse grammar
6) discourse grammar
 

Similar to Reading report

A semantics theory of word classes.pdf
A semantics theory of word classes.pdfA semantics theory of word classes.pdf
A semantics theory of word classes.pdfSara Parker
 
Copy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Copy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss RabiaCopy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Copy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss RabiaDr. Cupid Lucid
 
Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss RabiaDiscourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss RabiaDr. Cupid Lucid
 
Copy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Copy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss RabiaCopy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Copy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss RabiaDr. Cupid Lucid
 
Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss RabiaDiscourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss RabiaDr. Cupid Lucid
 
Pragmatics and Discourse , context & speech acts
Pragmatics and Discourse , context & speech actsPragmatics and Discourse , context & speech acts
Pragmatics and Discourse , context & speech actsNaeemIqbal88
 
readingandwritingskills-171211141506.pptx
readingandwritingskills-171211141506.pptxreadingandwritingskills-171211141506.pptx
readingandwritingskills-171211141506.pptxEVAMAEBONGHANOY5
 
Discourse analysis-1225482185740463-9
Discourse analysis-1225482185740463-9Discourse analysis-1225482185740463-9
Discourse analysis-1225482185740463-9Victor Canoy
 
Pragmaticspresentation 140705125246-phpapp02
Pragmaticspresentation 140705125246-phpapp02Pragmaticspresentation 140705125246-phpapp02
Pragmaticspresentation 140705125246-phpapp02Muhammad Sajjad Raja
 
Discourse analysis
Discourse analysisDiscourse analysis
Discourse analysisAyesha Mir
 
Reading and writing skills
Reading and writing skillsReading and writing skills
Reading and writing skillsGregorio ypil
 
READING LIST NOTES, 100 books and articles for Qualification Test, 2013.3.20
READING LIST NOTES, 100 books and articles for Qualification Test, 2013.3.20READING LIST NOTES, 100 books and articles for Qualification Test, 2013.3.20
READING LIST NOTES, 100 books and articles for Qualification Test, 2013.3.20Kris Chang, Ph.D.
 
Macrolinguistics & Contrastive Analysis
Macrolinguistics & Contrastive AnalysisMacrolinguistics & Contrastive Analysis
Macrolinguistics & Contrastive Analysiszahraa Aamir
 
Essay on the embryonic field of language
Essay on the embryonic field of languageEssay on the embryonic field of language
Essay on the embryonic field of languageKen Ewell
 

Similar to Reading report (20)

A semantics theory of word classes.pdf
A semantics theory of word classes.pdfA semantics theory of word classes.pdf
A semantics theory of word classes.pdf
 
Discourse analysis
Discourse analysisDiscourse analysis
Discourse analysis
 
Copy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Copy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss RabiaCopy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Copy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
 
Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss RabiaDiscourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
 
Copy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Copy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss RabiaCopy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Copy Of Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
 
Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss RabiaDiscourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
Discourse Analysis Presented To Miss Rabia
 
Discourse Analysis
Discourse AnalysisDiscourse Analysis
Discourse Analysis
 
Discourse Analysis
Discourse AnalysisDiscourse Analysis
Discourse Analysis
 
Pragmatics and Discourse , context & speech acts
Pragmatics and Discourse , context & speech actsPragmatics and Discourse , context & speech acts
Pragmatics and Discourse , context & speech acts
 
readingandwritingskills-171211141506.pptx
readingandwritingskills-171211141506.pptxreadingandwritingskills-171211141506.pptx
readingandwritingskills-171211141506.pptx
 
Discourse analysis-1225482185740463-9
Discourse analysis-1225482185740463-9Discourse analysis-1225482185740463-9
Discourse analysis-1225482185740463-9
 
Pragmaticspresentation 140705125246-phpapp02
Pragmaticspresentation 140705125246-phpapp02Pragmaticspresentation 140705125246-phpapp02
Pragmaticspresentation 140705125246-phpapp02
 
Discourse analysis
Discourse analysisDiscourse analysis
Discourse analysis
 
Pragmatics slide 1
Pragmatics slide 1Pragmatics slide 1
Pragmatics slide 1
 
Reading and writing skills
Reading and writing skillsReading and writing skills
Reading and writing skills
 
READING LIST NOTES, 100 books and articles for Qualification Test, 2013.3.20
READING LIST NOTES, 100 books and articles for Qualification Test, 2013.3.20READING LIST NOTES, 100 books and articles for Qualification Test, 2013.3.20
READING LIST NOTES, 100 books and articles for Qualification Test, 2013.3.20
 
Discourse Analysis
Discourse AnalysisDiscourse Analysis
Discourse Analysis
 
Macrolinguistics & Contrastive Analysis
Macrolinguistics & Contrastive AnalysisMacrolinguistics & Contrastive Analysis
Macrolinguistics & Contrastive Analysis
 
Essay on the embryonic field of language
Essay on the embryonic field of languageEssay on the embryonic field of language
Essay on the embryonic field of language
 
A Contrastive Study of Interpretations of Metaphor from Pragmatic Perspective
A Contrastive Study of Interpretations of Metaphor from Pragmatic PerspectiveA Contrastive Study of Interpretations of Metaphor from Pragmatic Perspective
A Contrastive Study of Interpretations of Metaphor from Pragmatic Perspective
 

Reading report

  • 1. Semantic book A R R A N G E D By: Name: Lewin M. Simarmata (12120157) Group : E Faculty of Teacher Training an Education HKBP Nommensen Pematangsiantar
  • 2. 2013 Acknowledgement First of all, I would like to thank to Almighty God because still give me mercy and blessing, for helping me to arrange this papers I would also like to thank to my lecturer, Sir David Berthony Manalu M.Pd, whose guidance has enlightened me to complete this assignment. I am arranging this paper to comply my last task about Reading III. In this paper I try to provide about analysis scientific book “Introducing to semantic and introducing English semantic”. The analysis such as, theories, research, experiences, and argument. Although I have try to make this papers with maximum, but I am sure this papers is not perfect, and when I do this paper, I am always stay up all night, because I have much assignment from another lesson and I must do it one by one, but I always try to finish this paper soon, if this paper finish I shall fell free of worry. Because of it, I need criticism and suggestion to make this papers become the best. I hope this paper have beneficial from all of people, special to reader and the last I say thanks Pematang siantar, December 2013 Composer
  • 3. i Table of content Acknowledgment…………………………………………………………………… Table of content…………………………………………………………………….. 1. Introduction. 1.1.Identities of book 1……………………………………………………………... 1.2. Identities of book 2…………………………………………………………….. 2. Reading summary. 2.1. Reading summary of book 1…………………………………………………… 2.2. Reading summary of book 2…………………………………………………… 3. Evaluation 3.1. Evaluation of book 1…………………………………………………………… 3.2. Evaluation of book 2……………………………………………………………
  • 4. Introduction Book’s identities: Identities of book 1 Title : Introducing to semantics Writer : Nick Riemer. Year of publication : first published in print format 2010 ISBN : - ISBN- 13 978-0-511-67746-5 (EBook (Net library) -ISBN-13-978-0-521-85192-3 Hardback -ISBN-13 978-0-521-61741-3 Paperback Identities of book 2 Title : Introducing English semantics Writer : Charles W. Kreidler Year of publication : First published 1998 ISBN : -ISBN 0-203-02115-0 Master e-book -ISBN 0-203-17370-8 (Adobe reader Format) -ISBN 0-415-18063-5 (hbk).
  • 5. i -ISBN 0-415-18064-3 (pbk). Purpose of writing reading report:  To complied my last task about reading III.  To motivated the writer to read scientific text or scientific book.  To indicate the writer to do research and selecting theorist Technique(s) and step used while reading book 1and book 2.  Pre reading : Preview and Predicting  While reading : Scanning and Skimming  Post reading : make conclusion
  • 6. Reading summary of book 1 Theory  For the purposes of linguistics, we can isolate three particularly important factors relevant to the study of meaning: the psychology of speakers, which creates and interprets language expression as projected by the language user’s psychology and the linguistic expression its self. As Ogden and Richard points outs, these three points constitute the semiotic triangle.(1949:10)  Tredennick distinguish two types of definition: Definition of the essence of a thing (real definition) Definition of the meaning of a word (nominal definition). Most linguists take nominal definition to be the type that is of interest to linguistic research.(1960:90)  The relation between language and context are not limited to those in which a linguistic expression describes a preexisting world. The assertion of facts about the world is just one of the acts which we can use language to perform. As noted by Grice we also ask questions, issue orders and make requests, in these types of speech act, truth is not a relevant parameter in the appreciation of meaning.(1989)  As noted by diesel, all languages have at least two deictically contrastive demonstratives: proximal is usually called this demonstrative and distal is usually called the that demonstrative (1999:13)  As noted by Givon, the fundamental role of assertion language can be seen as a consequence of four large-scale features of human social organization and the types of talk-exchange it engenders: first, communicative topics are often outside the immediate, perceptually available range, second, much pertinent information, third, the rapidity of change in the human environment, and the last, the participants.(1984:248)
  • 7. i  Austin’s theory of speech acts distinguished three types of act we perform in any utterance: first, the locutionary act is the act of saying something: the act of expressing the basic, literal meanings of the words chosen. Second, The illocutionary act is the act performed in saying something: the act of using words to achieve such goals as warning, promising, guaranteeing, etc. third, The perlocutionary act is the act performed by saying something: the act of producing an effect in the hearer by means of the utterance. (1962:145-147)  As noted by Nyckees there five important types of lexical relation have been identified. Synonymy, antonymy, meronymy, hyponymy and taxonomy. They play a determining role in linguistic intercomprehension.(1998)  As noted by Murphy, some words seem to have more than one antonym, depending on the dimension of contrast involved (girl has both boy and woman, depending on the whether the dimension of contrast is sex or age; sweet has both bitter and sour) (2003:173)  As Davidson says, the fact that a single linguistic structure may serve an unlimited number of contextual communicative ends points up a fundamental feature of human language that he calls the autonomy of linguistic meaning. (1973:73)  “The unit of linguistic communication is not, as has generally been supposed, the symbol, word or sentences, or even the token of the symbol, word or sentences, but rather the production or issuance of the symbol or word or sentence in the performance of the speech act.” (Searle 1969:16)  Grice distinguished four general maxims in conversation; they are the maxim of quality, the maxim of quantity, the maxim of relevance and the maxim of manner. Not all the maxim have equal importance (1989:27)  In the word of Jackendoff (2002:293),”we must consider the domain of linguistic semantics to be continuous with human conceptualization as a whole”.  In the word of Langacker 1987:98), studying linguistic meaning is the same thing as study in the nature of human conceptual structure, a cover all term for our thoughts, concepts, perceptions, images, and mental experience in general.  On the conceptual theory of metaphor view, lakoff says that, metaphor is a cognitive process which helps us to conceptualize our experience by setting up correspondences
  • 8. between easily understood things like burdens and hard to understand things like obligations. Metaphor is a cognitive operation first and foremost. (1987:416-461)  For sperber and Wilson, in contrast, language-use is an ostensive-inferential process: the speaker ostensively provides the hearer with evidence of their meaning in the form of words and, combined with the context, this linguistic evidence enables the hearer to infer the speaker’s meaning.(1995)  “The relevance of an input for an individual at a given time is a positive function of the cognitive benefits he would gain from processing it, and a negative function of the processing effort needed to achieve these benefits.” (Sperber and Wilson 2002:14)  For Carnap, pragmatic consideration like reference assignment, scope interpretation and implicatures like the temporal subsequency reading of and may enter into the truth- conditional approach to meaning, then, the boundary between semantics and pragmatics is porous, acts considered as prototypically part of the domain of pragmatics are necessary to the very calculation of truth-conditional meaning.(1942:42)  Litowitz and Evens isolate four different types of meronymy in English: the relation of the functional component to its whole, such as the relation between heart and body; the relation of a segment to a preexisting whole (slice-cake); the relation of a member to a collection or an element to a set (sheep-flock); and the relation they call subset-set(fruit- food) (1988)  For example of hyponymy as noted by Wierzbicka (1984),every (male) policeman is necessarily someone’s son, and not every member of the category someone’s son, is a policeman, but this doesn’t mean that a male policeman is a ‘kind of son’, and wouldn’t want to describe the relation between male policeman and someone’s son.  As noted by Atran (1999:121), consider for example the partial taxonomy animal- mammal-cow. Learning that one cow is susceptible to the disease but not that all mammal or animals are.  Ullmann (1972:141) points out that one of the few places where full word synonymy seems reasonably common is technical vocabulary, giving as example the fact that in medicine inflammation of the blind gut can be synonymously referred to as either caecitis or typhlistis.
  • 9. i  Murphy says that everybody and everyone are not lexical synonyms since they are not mutually substitutable in every context.  As noted by Halliday and Matthiessen (2004:117), semantics has nothing to do with truth, it is concerned with consensus about validity, and consensus is negotiated in dialogue.  According to Rosck, prototypical category members are those which share the most attributes with other members of their category, and the fewest with members of other categories, bird , for instance , might be defined through attributes such as ‘egg-laying’, ‘flaying’, ’small’, ‘vertebrate’, ’pecks food’, ‘winged’, ‘high-pitched call’, ‘builds nets’ and so on. (1978:38)  “The kinds of features that subjects associate with certain concepts vary widely and almost without limit when one varies the experimental context in which they are tested. Rather than accessing a fixed set of features in conjunction with each concept, there is apparently no limit to the features that even a single subject associates with a certain concept depending on the context in question “ (khalidi 1995:404)  As kneale and kneale explain (1962), logic investigates the properties of valid arguments and chains of reasoning, and specifies the conditions which arguments must meet in order to be valid. It is important to linguists for the principle reasons: first, its constitutes one of the oldest and most developed traditions of the study of meaning. Second, It is at the heart of formal and computational theories of semantics, third certain logical concepts provide and interesting point of contrast with their natural language equivalents.  Lyons says that, meaning postulates are not just limited to the formalization of the specific lexical relations, they can also be used to express more particular interrelations between particular words.(1963)  Bertrand Russell (1905), Russell’s theory of definite descriptions offers an analysis in logical term of the meaning of propositions involving the English determiner the, according to which such propositions contain disguised quantifications.
  • 10.  Pustejovsky’s theory is that each of these roles can operate independently within the semantics of a clause. For example, we know that a fast car is one that moves quickly, and a fast motorway is one on which cars can move quickly, since fast applies to the telic role of the noun: the role that refers to the function or purpose which the referent fulfils. (1995:421-423)  Huddleston says that, the categories of semantic criteria interpretations of the part of speech like noun (word used as the name of a living being or lifeless thing.), verb (word which denotes action or a state of being), and adjective (word which denotes a property of characteristic of some object, person or thing.) (1983)  Many languages show widespread multicategoriality (roots which may appear as different parts of speech). Hopper says that, we can think of nouns and verbs as ‘slots’ or contexts available in each clause, each of which comes associated with the appropriate grammatical machinery. The grammatical slots themselves can be seen as the carriers of the noun hood or verb hood which the word ends up acquiring.(1988)  Jackendoff’s theory of semantic representation dispenses completely with theta-roles, and derives argument structure directly from the semantic of the verb. This means that the thematic hierarchy can be completely restated in terms of underlying conceptual configurations. In Jackendoff’s theory of conceptual structure, selectional restrictions are also specified directly by the conceptual structure: they are not extra information which needs to be learnt in addition to the meaning of the verbs themselves.(1987,2002)
  • 11. i Research  Keenan says that we can readily imagine situations even in our own society which do not observe the first maxim of quantity, which stipulates that hearers are to make their contributions as informative as is required for the current purposes of the exchange.(1976:218)  Cruse investigated antonyms meaning long-short, good-bad and hot-cold in English, French, Turkish, Macedonian, Arabic, and Chinese. For the adjective meaning ‘longer’, ‘shorter’, and ‘bitter’ all language allow an impartial or uncommitted use, suggesting that antonym behavior may show some cross linguistic uniformity.  Rosch says that the prototypicality of items within a category can be shown to affect virtually all of the major dependent variables used as measures in psychological research for instance category membership of the form ‘An [exemplar] is a [category name]’ (e.g. ‘a robin is a bird’)  Lakoff (1973) for example of a category, a sentence like a sparrow is a true bird is perfectly normal, unlike a penguin is a true bird: sparrows, not penguins, are prototypical exemplars of the category bird. Conversely, technically can only be applied to non- prototypical category members: a penguin is technically a bird is acceptable, but a sparrow is technically a bird.  Rosch point out of the category, that some attributes, like ‘large’ for the category piano, depend on considerable background knowledge: pianos are large for pieces of furniture, but small for buildings. It could therefore be objected that attributes like this are not more basic cognitively than the whole objects to which they belong, and that they cannot be considered the basic for the categorization. (1978:42)  Levin and Hovav (2005: 18) observe that, “verb classes are similar in status to natural classes of sounds in phonology and the elements of meaning which serve to distinguish among the classes of verbs are similar in status to phonology’s distinctive features. Furthermore, since these grammatically relevant facets of meaning are viewed as
  • 12. constituting the interface between a full-fledged representation of meaning and the syntax, most researchers have assumed that, like the set of distinctive features, the set of such meaning elements is both universal and relatively small in size.” Argument  As Sperber and Wilson’s argument “it is not enough to point out that information may be carried over from one conceptual process to the next, one would like to know which information is kept in a short term memory store, which is simply erased”.(1995:138- 139)  As commented by Lehrer about prototype categorization, “when we look at some of the detailed lexical descriptions that have been done, the data themselves often have forced the investigator to posit fuzzy boundaries and partial class inclusion, implicitly acknowledging something like prototype theory”. (1990:380).  Jackendoff claims that a decomposition method is necessary to explore conceptual structure, in which the concepts underlying word meaning are broken down into their smallest elements: conceptual primitives envisaged as the semantic equivalents of phonological features (1978)  Hopper and Thompson suggest that parts of speech can be understood as prototype categories defined by their discourse functions. The difference in the grammatical options available to a given occurrence of a noun or verb correlates with its discourse function in a given context – the closer the noun or verb is to playing its prototypical discourse role, the closer it comes to exhibiting the full range of grammatical possibilities of its class. (1984:710-711)  Chung and Timberlake (1985:204-205) says that, tense is the name of the class of grammatical markers used to signal the location of situations in time. Three basic temporal divisions are relevant to the representation of time in language: what is happening now, what will happen afterwards, and what has already happened.  Dowty (1991) suggested about the problem with thematic roles that, the different participant roles are cluster concepts, like Roschean prototypes, and that thematic roles are based on entailments of verb-meanings.
  • 13. i Reading summary book 2 Theory  “language is purely human and non instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions, and desires by means of a system of voluntary symbols” (Sapir, 1939)  “Linguistic is a scientific study of language or languages” (T.A. Ridwan, 1982:10)  Allan Keith says, linguistic semantics is an attempt to explicate the knowledge of any speakers of language which allows that speaker to communicate facts, feelings, intentions and product of the imagination to other speaker and to understand what they communicate to him or her.(1986)  “Semantics is the study of linguistic meaning. It is concerned with that sentences and other linguistic objects express, not with the arrangement of their syntactic parts or with their pronunciation” (Katz, 1972:1)  “Meaning signifies any and all phrases of sign-process (the status of being a sign, the interpreted, the fact of denoting, the signification.) and frequently suggest mental and valuation process as well” (Morris, 1946:19)  “We can define the meaning of speech-form accurately when this meaning has to do with some matter of which we posses scientific knowledge. We can define the names of plants, or animals by means of the technical botany or zoology, but we have no precise way of defining love or hate and these latter are in the great majority” (Bloomfield 1933)  As a noted by George Dillon (1977) about demonstrating semantic knowledge, he says that speaker of language have an implicit knowledge about what is meaningful in their language, and its easy to show this in our account of what that knowledge is, it is ten aspects of any speakers semantic knowledge, anomaly, paraphrase, synonymy, semantic feature, antonymy, contradiction, ambiguity, adjacency pairs, entailment and presupposition.
  • 14.  Lenneberg (1967),Clark (1977:295-430), says that processes like making question and negative statements are acquired, processes that go beyond a mere reflection of what is in the environment and make it possible for the child to express himself and interact with others.  As noted by Clark (1996:121) that speaker and hearer use the same vocabulary, they have similar pronunciations, and they have the same ways of putting words together in the sentences.  As Fillmore (1979:781) put it, we need to know not only what the speaker says but also what he talking about, why he bothers to say it, and why he says it the way he does. Comprehension is not just talking in words, as listeners we use our background information to interpret the message.  Clark and Clark 1977:49) says that, as a listeners we begin by identifying the phonetic message and through the phonetic message identify the semantic message.  It is important to distinguish between linguistic meaning, as a point out of Schifrin (1994), what is communicated by particular pieces of language and utterance meaning, what is a certain individual meant by saying such and such in a particular piece, time and to certain others individuals.  A mentalistic theory about meaning Ogden and Richards (1923), an attempt to explain meaning in term of what is in people’s mind. Meaning are expressed by units that may be smaller than words and expressed in units sentences that are large than words, meaning is more than denotation, also express opinions, favorable and unfavorable.  Hjelmslev (1971:109-10) pointed out that among the Eskimos a dog is an animal that used for pulling a sled, the Parsees regard dogs as nearly sacred. Hjelmslev added that in certain societies the flesh of dogs is part of the human diet and in others societies it is not.  Austin says that, in every speech we can distinguish three things, what is said, the utterance, can be called the locution, what the speakers intends to communicate to the addressee is the illocution, the massage that the addressee gets, his interpretation of what the speaker says is the perlocution. (1962)  As theory of grice, such communication is guided by four factors, called maxims, the maxims of quantity requires the speaker to give as much information as the addressee
  • 15. i need but no more, the maxim of relevance requires us, as speakers, to make our utterances relative to the discourse going on and the contexts in which they occur, the maxims of manner is to be orderly and clear and to avoid ambiguity, the maxim of quality is to say only what one believes to be true. (1975-1978)  A stative predicate, according to Comrie (1976:49), a stative predicate is typically durative in aspect, it is relates a situation that does not change during the time when the predication is valid.  Vandler (1967) proposed a four-way classification of predicates as stative, activity, achievement and accomplishment predicates. Stative and activity predicate are atelic, and achievement predicate are telic.  Vlach (1981:279) says that, the progressive form indicates that the activity predicated is distributed over a period of time with an implied endpoint.  Kiparsky and kiparsky (1970) point out that certain predicates, among them the verb forget, are factivy. A factivy predicate has a predication as one of its argument and whether affirmative or negative, it presupposes the truth of that predication.  Native speakers of English learn these verbs so early in life that they are unaware of having learned them. As Joos (1964:147-8) points out, a child of four may ask the meaning of duty but is not likely to ask about the meaning of must.  Perceptual verbs, also called ‘sensory verbs,’ express the sensations that we receive from outside stimuli through our five sense, as a noted by Viberg (1983:123-6), our perceptions are reactions to stimuli: reflected light strikes our retinas, vibrations impinge on our eardrum, other sensations affect the nerves in our tongue, skin, or nose.  Note that in such sentences the person affected, named by the subject, is not affected by the perception of an entity nor of a simultaneous event but by a mental reaction to what has been observed. (kirsner and Thompson 1976:205-8)  Adjectives derived from verbs are either active- subjective or passive objective (Magnusson and persson 1986:195-8). An envious person is one who envies, an enviable person is one that we envy, one to be envied. Envious is active subjective, enviable is passive objective.
  • 16. Evaluation Evaluation 3.1 Strengths and weakness of book 1 Strengths: 1. this book has complied explained about the topic  This book has complied explained about the semantic  This book is clear and comprehensive  It contains more 200 exercises and discussion question design to test and deepen reader’s understanding.  It is clearly explain and contrasts different theoretical approaches, summarizes, and provides helpful suggestion for further reading.  This book also highlights the connections between semantics and the wider study of human language in psychology, anthropology and linguistic itself. Weakness:  This book has much difficult word. Strengths and weakness of book 2 Strengths:  This book has a wealth of exercise  Discusses the nature of language  Includes a glossary of term Weakness:
  • 17. i  This book has much difficult word. Recommendation of book 1 and book 2 This book “introducing English semantics” will be an essential text for any student which following an introductory course in semantics, and also for lecturer or teacher. We can read the book whenever we want to read it and in wherever you want.