Senin, 12 Juni 2017

FOUR ARTICLES REVIEW OF SEMANTICS


  Hi readers, Now,  I would like to share you the greatest article about semantics. All of these article had shared by my friends from academia edu. And I am trying to review again.


(1).      DESI NORI SAHPUTRI

A.      Demograph
Title          : Theories of Semantics: Merits and Limitations
Searcher 1: Saleh Mustafa Ramadan
From         : Al-Zaytoonah Private University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan.
Searcher 2: Taleb I. Ababneh
From         : Irbid National University- Jordan, Irbid, Jordan.
Pages        : 9

B.      Content
This article discuss about some of the well–known theories of meaning formulated in the last century. Mainly referential theory of meaning, non– referential theory of meaning and generative grammarian theory of meaning.


C.      Result/Finding
Meaning is the Relationship between Words and Objects
Greek philosophers say that the best way of indicating the meaning of a word is to refer to the object represented by that word.

Meaning is a Triangular Relationship
The symbol is the spoken or written word by picture; the reference is the information that the spoken or written shape of the word conveys to the reader/ hearer; and the referent is the thing or the object we talk about.

Bloomfield’s View of Meaning
Bloomfield (1933) said that the context of situation was an essential part of meaning, and the meaning of a linguistic form as the situation in which the speaker utters it and the response which it calls forth in the hearer.

The Non–Referential Theory of Meaning
The non–referential as suggested by its name doesn’t take into consideration the context of situations or the reference in determining what meaning is. There is a relationship between language and the outside world because language doesn’t exist in vacuum.

The Generative Grammarian Theory
This approach was based on the assumption that syntactic rules operate independently of meaning.

D.     Strength and Weakness

Strength : this article has many theories based on many experts. So it can convince the reader to use this article to get more their knowledge of semantic. Also, can make the reader more understand.

Weakness : this article just has few example. Actually readers more easy to understand with example rather than theory.

E.      Conclusion
The main principles of three well–known theories of meaning, namely the referential theory to meaning, the non–referential theory to meaning and the generative grammarian theory to meaning.


(2).      NABILA FIRDA ASY’ARI
A.      Demograph
Title          : Semantics and Theories of Semantics
Author      : Abbas Bukhari
Pages        : 15

B.      Content
This article told the meaning of semantics and the ways to solve the difficulties in the study of meaning And discussed the different aspect of meaning, some term and distinction in semantics.

C.      Result/ Findings
How is language organized in order to be meaningful? This is the question we ask and attempt to answer at the level of semantics. Semantics is that level of linguistic analysis where meaning is analyzed. Meaning is related very closely to the human capacity to think logically and to understand. So when we try to analyze meaning, we are trying to analyse our own capacity to think and understand, our own ability to create meaning.
Meaning can be any of the following:
1. An intrinsic property of some thing
2. Other words related to that word in a dictionary
3. The connotations of a word
4. The thing to which the speaker of that word refers
5. The thing to which the speaker of that word should refer
6. The thing to which the speaker of that word believes himself to be referring
7. The thing to which the hearer of that word believes is being referred to.

D.     Strength and Weakness
Strength : this article served with complete the explanation, theories, and many examples of semantics. It can make the readers easier to understand.

Weakness :to much word in this article. So, i had got confused about this article.

E.      Conclusion
The problem of ‘meaning’ is quite difficult; it is because of its toughness that some linguists went on to the extent of excluding semantics from linguistics. When we talk about meaning, we are talking about the ability of human beings to understand one another when they speak. This ability is to some extent connected with grammar. Also, The sound patterns of language are studied at the level of phonology and the organization of words and sentences is studied at the level of morphology and syntax.


(3).      SUSI LESTARI
A.      Demograph
Title          : Frame semantics a brief introduction
Author      : Diego Gavagna
From         : Aarhus University, 2013
Pages        : 12

B.      Content
This article give a comprehensive explanation on how meanings are structured and associated to words in a semantic structure. Then, how these provide access to our conceptual system, and the inventory of structured knowledge that we use to navigate the world.  It describes the relation between words that cannot just be ascribed to structural semantic relations like hyponymy, synonymy or antonym and the interdependencies between words based on background knowledge that humans acquire through experience and store in long-term memory.

C.      Result/Findings
Frame semantics can be thought of as the effort to understand what reason a speech community might have found for creating the category represented by the word, and to explain the word’s meaning by presenting and clarifying that reason.
From these word, beside the systemic interrelations between words and between the respective underlying concepts, emerges one further characteristic of frame semantics, namely, that knowledge is grounded in human interaction with others and with the world. Thus, frames are prior expectations and knowledge about the world that is the whole time strengthen, weakened and transformed according to the information our brain receives from the perceptive senses. 
So that boy would be defined as [human], [male], [young]. girl would be described as [human],[minus male], [young].The necessary and sufficient condition for it would be [human],[male], [adult], [minus married]. However this definition would include as bachelor also the Pope, proving that the accuracy of the definition is strongly undermined. 

D.      Strength and Weakness
Strength : The interest thing in this article is Frame semantics. It served with clear example that can make us will be easy to understand.

Weakness: the author said his dissertation is can not be considered exhaustive, but he have tried to give described the main terms of the theory.

E.       Conclusion
Many other authors have developed this framework, including the remarkable attempt by Lakoff & Johnson in describing the concept of reframing in political discourse based on frame semantics’ approach and the role of metaphors and metonymy in natural languages. Lakoff’s approach is particularly interesting because it is not just an analytical framework but very much also a set of practical tools usable in everyday life. The important contribution is proposed by Fauconier and Turner describing the characteristics of mental spaces that pose the ground for blending theory.


(4).      ANNISA SEPTIANI
A.      Demograph
Title          : Modern Linguistics Semantics
Author      : Kate Kearns,Senior Lecturer, Department of Linguistics.
From         : University of Canterbury New Zealand.
Upload      : Pooja Saikia

B.      Content
This article concentrated on literal meaning, the content of word, and expressions which is fairly constant from one occasion of use to another. Also, this article discussed The kind of semantic/pragmatic.

C.      Result/Findings

This article present the kinds of meaning:
1.      Denotation and sense
The general point is that linguistic expressions are linked in virtue of their meaning to parts of the world around us, which is the basis of our use of language to convey information about reality. The denotation of an expression is the part of reality the expression is linked to.
The second way of giving the meaning of a word, commonly used in dictionaries, is to paraphrase it,
The most widely discussed form of the sense/denotation distinction is the means‘the blue train’ is to say that the French expression and the English expression have the same sense.sense/reference distinction. An expression which denotes just one individual is said to refer to that individual. Titles and proper names are common referring expressions
2.      Lexical and Structural Meaning
lexical meaning, which is the meaning of the individual words.
Structural meaning mainly comprises the meaning derived from the syntactic structure of an expression, for example: , which is the meaning of the way the words are combined.
3.      Categorematic expressions, which include the vast majority of words, are the descriptive words such as nouns, adjectives and verbs.

D.     Stregth and Weakness

Strength : this article served clear explanation and so deeper. So, you can know more about semantics by this article. Then, the example and tips from the author can help us to easier understand.

Weakness : this article does not clear explain some sub topic. It can make misunderstanding in the reader.
E.      Conclusion
.Semantics provides the literal meaning of the elements I, forget, past tense, the and paper. And many examples we can found there. This journal has been explain about meaning such as semantics,kind, semantics,lexical and structural meaning and etc.


Senin, 22 Mei 2017

Polysemy

hallo reader, Now i will share about one part of semantic, that is Polysemy. please enjoy!!!
 
Click here! for get the PDF

Traditionally, two types of lexical amibiguity are distinguished:
Homophony refers to cases in which two words “accidentally” have the same phonological form (e.g., bank), whereas polysemy refers to the phenomenon that one and the same word acquires different, though obviously related, meanings, often with respect to particular contexts. Consider the following examples of homophony(cf. Pustejovsky (1995): p. 27):

(1) a.Mary walked along the bank of the river.
b.HarborBank is the richest bank in the city.

(2) a.Drop me a line when you are in Boston.
b.We built a fence along the property line.

(3) a.First we leave the gate, then we taxi down the runway.
b.John saw the taxi down the street.

(4) a.The discussion turned on the feasibility of the scheme.
b.The bull turned on the matador.

(5) a.The judge asked the defendant to approach the bar.
b.The defendant was in the pub at the bar.
c.He bought a bar of soap.

And contrast this with the following cases of meaning variation, which illustrate polysemy:
(6) a.The bank raised its interest rates yesterday.
b.The store is next to the newly constructed bank.
c.The bank appeared first in Italy in the Renaissance.

(7) a.John crawled through the window.
b.The window is closed.
c.The window is made of security glass.

(8) a.The farm will fail unless the drought ends soon.
b.It is difficult to farm this land.

(9) a.The store is open.
b.The thief tried to open the door.

There are two important differences:
1. First, it is immediately obvious to speakers that the meanings of a polysemous expression are related to each other. This is typically not the case for homophonous expressions, even though they may be historically related as well (cf. some of the examples above).

2. Second, polysemy is regular. For example, we find the three meanings illustrated with bank in(6) (specific institution, building that houses the institution, and the type of the institution) with university as well. Similarly, we find the three meanings of  window illustrated in (7) (path, opening, and concrete object that can close an opening) with door.

I will give you more example of Polysemy for more understanding
·        Animal/meat:
a.The lamb is running in the field.
b.John ate lamb for breakfast.

·        Object/Stuff an object is made up:
a.There is an apple on the table.
b.There is apple in the salad.

·        Stuff/Kind:
a.There was cheese on the table.
b.Three cheeses were served.

·        Stuff/Portions:
a.The restaurant served beer, and so
b.we ordered three beers.

·        Plant/food alternation:
a.Mary watered the fig in the garden.
b.Mary ate the fig.

·        We have alternations between containers and contained:
a.Mary broke the bottle.
b.The baby finished the bottle.

·        Figure/Ground reversal:
a.The window is rotting.
b.Mary crawled through the window.

Senin, 20 Maret 2017

Review Semantic Article part 2

hallo reader, now i can give review about the journal of "Meaningful modeling what the Semantics of semantics" . i hope you can understand it. keep enjoy!

Title: "Meaningful modeling what the Semantics of semantics".
Author : David Harel
Pages: 9 
  1. Demograph 
The Authors is a students of University of Weizmann Institute of Science, Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, Faculty Member. Published by the IEEE Computer Society on October 2004.
2.      Background
This Paper discussed The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a complex collection of mostly diagrammatic notations for software modeling, and its standardization has prompted an animated discussion about UML's semantics and how to represent it.
3.      Result
            He has set out to clarify some of the notions involved in defining modeling languages, with an eye toward the particular difficulties arising in defining UML.
The result:
The Unified Modeling Language (UML) is a complex collection of mostly diagram-matic notations for software modeling, and its standardization has prompted an animated discussion about UML’s seman-tics and how to represent it. As the “Wrong Ways to View Semantics” sidebar describes, authors have quite different ideas of what constitutes semantics for UML subsets and adaptations. Worse, implicit assumptions often influence these definitions and results. Comparing published research on UML semantics is thus very difficult, since the compari-son must take into account the subsets dealt with, the kind of systems assumed, the relationships among constructs, the definitions’ detail level, and the notations and representations used. Obviously, a multitude of concepts surround the proper definition of complex modeling languages, and many people are confused about what these concepts—both crucial and marginal—really mean and how to understand and use them. This confu-sion is particularly apparent in the context of UML ,a multifaceted effort whose followers are ever grow-ing, but it is also characteristic of other modeling approaches.We have thus set out to clarify some of the notions involved in defining modeling languages, with an eye toward the particular difficulties arisingin defining UML. We are primarily interested in dis-tinguishing a language’s notation, or syntax, fromits meaning, or semantics, as well as recognizing the differences between variants of syntax and seman-tics in their nature, purpose, style, and use.

ELEMENTS OF A LANGUAGE DEFINITION
Much has been said about the distinction between the purist notion of information and its syntactic representation as data. The literature gen-erally agrees that data is used to communicate, but extracting or understanding the information behind it requires an interpretation—a mapping that assigns a meaning to each (legal) piece of data. A major source of confusion is the mixing of the data and information notions. In one case, two pieces of data might encode the same information, for example, “June 20, 2000” and “The last day of the first spring in the second millennium.” In another case, the same piece of data might have sev-eral meanings and therefore denote different infor-mation for different people or applications. The information the reader derives from “John’s birth-day,” for example, depends on the context. Deeply understanding the difference between syntax and semantics helps avoid confusion. Just as people use natural languages to commu-nicate with each other, machines use machine-read-able languages for communication. Both kinds of language—whether they are natural, artificial, pro- gramming, or hardware description languages—contain a great variety of meaningful language ele-ments. Communication stakeholders must thus agree on the language, which in turn fixes the dataset that they can communicate. Accordingly, a language consists of a syntactic notation (syntax), which is a possibly infinite set of legal elements, together with the meaning of those elements, which is expressed by relating the syntax to a semantic domain. Thus, any language defini-tion must consist of the syntax semantic domain and semantic mapping from the syntactic elements to the semantic domain.
Syntax
Depending on the language type, syntactic ele-ments can be words, sentences, statements, boxes, diagrams, terms, models, clauses, modules, and soon. In our description and the “Two Language Examples” sidebar, we use “expression” to repre-sent these terms. Textual  languages are  symbolic  in spirit, and their basic syntactic expressions are put together in linear character sequences. In contrast, the basic expres-sions in iconic languages are small pictorial signs that visually depict elements. An iconic language can be more intuitive than a textual language, but only if the designer resists abusing the icons.  In diagrammatic languages, or visual for-malisms,
1basic expressions include lines, arrows, closed curves and boxes, and composition mecha-nisms involve connectivity, partitioning, and “in-sideness.” Despite some well-known critiques,
2,3 diagrammatic languages are proving extremely helpful in software and systems development. In a theoretical sense, textual languages and visual or diagrammatic ones have no principal difference, but when rigor and formality are called for, prop-erly defining diagrams seems much harder. Moreover, although semantics actually describes a language’s meaning, computer tools make it impossible to manipulate semantics directly. Instead, everything on paper or the screen is a syn-tactic representation. This is also true of the machine’s internal representation, the so-called abstract syntax or metamodel. Because a rigid syntax is critical to correct lan-guage interpretation, any attempt to compromise it could  be  disastrous. Writing
read(data) in a lan-guage in which the input commands are of the form input(data)
will result in a syntax error, forexample. And a computer can’t exactly recognize the command, “How about getting me a value forK?” Thus, a formal, concise, and rigid set of syn-tax.

Wrong Ways to View Semantics
It is an understatement to say that different people view semantics differently across software and systems engineering. After listening to numerous presentations and reading even more papers, we have iden-tified both specializations of the general concept and downright mis-uses. The following are some common erroneous views, many in the context of UML.
Semantics is the metamodel.
This is a common misuse of the term. The metamodel is but a way to describe the language’s syntax; it is a crucial precursor, but it is not the semantics itself. Knowing what a lan-guage looks like does not equate with understanding what it means.

·        Semantics is the semantic domain.
Some people use the word seman-tics as shorthand for the statement, “The semantics is given in terms of a particular semantic domain or maps the syntax into that domain.”Using semantics and semantic domain interchangeably is erroneous, since it avoids the most crucial part of the semantics—the semantic map-ping.

·        Semantics is the context conditions.
This use of the term has its roots in compiler theory, where everything beyond the basic context-free grammar is viewed as semantics. It seems to have had a great influence on the way Object Constraint Language constraints are used on top of UML’s metamodel. This use of the term semantics is also erroneous, as it does not entail either a semantic domain or a semantic mapping. It sim-ply further constrains the syntax. In the UML standardization docu-ments, “static semantics” is used instead of “context conditions.”

·        Semantics is dealing with behavior.
Some of the most intricate lan-guages deal with behavior, especially reactive behavior. Their semantics must prescribe the system’s behavior for each allowed program/model/ expression, so that for such languages, behavior and semantics are closely related. However, structure description languages, for example, don’t talk about behavior, but they still need semantics. Hence, seman-tics and behavior are not to be confused.

·        Semantics is being executable
Taking the previous point one step further, some people equate having semantics with being executable. Clearly, if a language is executable, it probably has an adequate seman-tics, although that semantics might not have been given an adequately clear representation. However, not all languages specify behavior, and not all those that do so are (or need to be) executable. Also, even if the language is meant to be executable, it can have a non executable, deno-tational semantics. Thus, in general, having adequate semantics has lit-tle to do with a language’s ability to be executed.

·        Semantics is the behavior of a system.
Sometimes people talk about the semantics of a particular system—the way it behaves, its reaction time, and so on. This is quite different from the semantics of the lan-guages used to describe that system.

·        Semantics is the meaning of individual constructs.
People often refer to the semantics of some part of the language, even just one construct. Clearly, there is much more to semantics than that.
Semantics means looking mathematical . When some people see that parts of a language definition have mathematical symbols, they are con-vinced that it is probably also precisely defined. This is simply not true.

·        Semantics is ________
Some people simply give a buzzword to indi-cate something about how the semantic definition goes, as in “the semantics is given by message-passing.” This prompts others to think that the language is properly endowed with semantics. Sadly, the worst cases are when the people making this kind of statement actually believe it themselves.

The strengthness
This journal provide very complete explanation with key word or instruction, that can make the reader more understand.

The Weakness
this journal used decode decipher that make the reader become confused and do not make the example in each explanation, so the reader cannot understand this journal clearly.

So, Semantics have many function in context of Unified Modeling Language.

Senin, 06 Maret 2017

Review of Journal (Meaningful modeling what the Semantics of semantics)

hallo readers, now i will post the review for journal entitle "Meaningful modeling what the Semantics of semantics". This journal published by Bernhard Rumpe at Academia.edu. there is 9 pages in this journal that talks about semantics in the several context of Unified Modeling Language.

This journal tells us definition of semantics in the several context of Unified Modeling Language. There are semantic is the metamodel, semantic domain, context conditions, dealing with behavior, being executable, behavior of a system, the meaning of individual constructs, looking mathematical, etc. So, this journal help us to know more  about the function of semantics in the several context of Inified Modeling Language. In addition, this journal tells about syntax and others parts that related to semantics and make us more understand about semantics.
            The strengthness of this journal are: This journal provide very complete explanation with key word or instruction, that can make the reader more understand.

The Weakness:  this journal used decode decipher that make the reader become confused and do not make the example in each explanation, so the reader cannot understand this journal clearly.

So, Semantics have many function in context of Unified Modeling Language.