I've been trying to find out what the difference is between the two approaches for the last hour. Thanks for the straight forward answer!
@Kiki-xe8fr2 жыл бұрын
I pay so much money for college to get my degree and I learn so much here to understand what I am doing
@MohamedAli-rd7rn2 жыл бұрын
The lesson is remarkable and meaningful ✨️ 🙏 I owe you a big time ⏲️ This lecture has actually had a million value!!
@OmyShiki9 ай бұрын
Your lessons are so incredible well made. Thank you, doctor.
@UzmaKousar-qz4sd9 ай бұрын
Very knowledgeable
@MrEmBerna5 жыл бұрын
It seems to me that here "sense and denotation" correspond to Frege's "Sinn und Bedeutung". The problem is that some translators translated "Bedeutung" with "Reference". Since you are using the term "Reference" to describe the link between a Word (or signification) and its Sense, a space for the notion of "Bedeutung" was left in the schema, hence filled with "Denotation". But this latter term is opposed to "Connotation" in some theories (e.g. in J.S. Mill's one), so my questions are: are all my above conjectures correct? How does "Connotation" (which can be resumed as a culturally-biased spreading of use of a certain Sense in a language) fit within this schema? Is it still related/opposed to Denotation (even if here the latter one links a Word with their Object while Connotation does not at all), is it more related (as it actually seems) to "Sense" and "Reference" as you used them, or is it something between "Reference" and "Denotation"?
@user-ml1cz7ex6f6 ай бұрын
How can we bifurcate two abstract nouns without using image and words?
@Astrophile3742 жыл бұрын
It's really very informative lecture thankuuu sir💫😊
@rachaelnalwanga58623 жыл бұрын
Always grateful Dr
@pochrauttamaphant69542 жыл бұрын
Would you please clarify 'speaker reference' and 'semantic reference'
@rusdinoorrosa9155 Жыл бұрын
Gteat explanaton
@Bcreative.mp43 жыл бұрын
this is very clear sir!
@bluedefender45232 жыл бұрын
Sir , please tell the name of semantic theories ?
@najiebeyrehe6742 жыл бұрын
Thank you for helpful explanation, but there's still unclear side of what you had presented in this lecture. It's intension and extension because they belong to these theories. I will be grateful to you if you give us general view. Anyway thank you too much
@namrahkhan28872 жыл бұрын
Some concepts were hard but thank you!
@user-lx2ll8qg8h2 жыл бұрын
Thanks alot🌹🌹🌹
@Dystisis5 жыл бұрын
Verbs "denote actions". Do people not realise the issue with this? What is an action? Do you mean a single instance, or a class of actions, or a set of actions? Does an action "exist"? This leads to a fathomless depth that the originators of this theory cannot account for.
@MrEmBerna5 жыл бұрын
Perhaps what you're looking for is about the debate on the notion of "event", which fits better to the above correlation "verbs denote events", but still this is not exhaustive. I suggest you to look for the notion of "event" in Leonard Talmy's work. You may find it useful