Masih mungkinkah semantik?

  • Zaiton Darois Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka
  • Jonathan Berg

Abstract

The standard view of semantics-that every disambiguated sentence has a determinate semantic content, relative to an assignment of contents to its indexical expressions, and not necessarily identical to what may be conveyed (pragmatically) by its utterance-is defended against standard objections and is also argued for on independent grounds, which suggest that resistance to the view comes from a failure to distinguish between "strict semantics "and "loose semantics".

References

1. Barwise, Jon dan John Perry, 1983. Situations and Attitudes. Cambridge: MIT Press.

2. Berg, Jonathan, 1998. In Defense of Direct Belief Substitutivity, Availability, and lterability. Lingua e Stile 33: 461-70.

3. Berg, Jonathan, 1993. Literal Meaning and Context. Iyyun 42:297-411.

4. Carnap, Rudolph, 1956. Meaning and Necessity, edisi ke-2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

5. Frege, Gottlob, 1982. Ueber Sinn Un bedeutttng Zeitsclzrift fur Plzilosoplzie and Philosipphisclze Kritik 100:25-50.

6. Greenfield, P., dan C. Dents, 1979. "A Developmental Study of the Communication of Meaning: The Role of Uncertainty and Information". dlm.: P.L French. (ed.) The development of meaning, 300-337. Hiroshima: Bunka Hyoron.

7. Grice, Paul, 1975. "Logic and Conversation". dlm.: P. Cole dan J. Morgan (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Jil. 3, 41-58, New York: Academic Press (Dicetak semula dalam Grice, Paul, 1989. Studies in The Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

8. Kaplan, David, 1989. Aftertlzouglzts. dlm.: J. Almog, J. Perry dan J. Morgan (ed.), Syntax and Semantics, Jil. 3. New York: Oxford University Press.

9. Kripke, Saul, 1977. "Speaker's Reference and Semantic Reference". dlm. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 2: 255-76. (Dicetak semula dalam: P.A. French, TE. (ed.), Uehling dan H.K. Wettstein, 1979. Contemporary Perspectives in the Philosophy of Language 6-27. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Pres).

10. Perry, John, 1988. Cognitive Significance And New Theories of Reference. Nous 22: 1-18.

11. Putnam, Hilary, 1970. "Is Semantics Possible"? dim.: H. Keifer dan M. Mintz, (ed.), Languages, belief and metaphysics, 139-152. Press Albany: SUNY (Dicetak semula dalam: H. Putnam, 1975. "Mind, language and reality". Kertas Kerja Falsafah, Jil. 2, 139-52. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

12. Putnam, Hilary, 1977. " .. .I thought of what I called an 'automatic sweetheart'." Syarahan I, Ben-Gurion University.

13. Quine, W.V.O., 1951. Two Dogmas of Empiricism, Philosophical Review 60:20-43 (Dicetak semula dalam: W.V.O. Quine, 1961. From a logical point of view, edisi ke-2, 20-46 New York: Harper and Row).

14. Russell, Bertrand, 1905. On Denoting. Mind 14:479-93.

15. Searle, John, 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

16. Searle, John, 1978. Literal Meaning. Erkenntnis 13:207-24.

17. Strawson, P.F., 1950. On Referring. Mind 59:320-44.

18. Travis, Charles, 1989. The Uses of Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19. Travis, Charles, 1991. Annals of Analysis. Mind 100:237-64.

20. Travis, Charles, 1997. "Pragmatics". dlm.: B. Hale dan C. Wright, (ed.), A companion to the philosophy of language, 87-107. Oxford: Blackwell.
Published
2003-03-03
How to Cite
DAROIS, Zaiton; BERG, Jonathan. Masih mungkinkah semantik?. Jurnal Bahasa, [S.l.], v. 3, n. 1, p. 80-95, mar. 2003. ISSN 2462-1889. Available at: <http://jurnal.dbp.my/index.php/jurnalbahasa/article/view/8629>. Date accessed: 02 dec. 2025.