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"?
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
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.
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
![[UNCUT]"ทนายตั้ม" แฉยับ! ความลับสวรรค์ ใครคือ "บิ๊กเทวดา" ของบอสพอล l คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ l 15 ต.ค. 67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ru9fpSaUwdA/mqdefault.jpg)
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!
Your lessons are so incredible well made. Thank you, doctor.
The lesson is remarkable and meaningful ✨️ 🙏
I owe you a big time ⏲️
This lecture has actually had a million value!!
I pay so much money for college to get my degree and I learn so much here to understand what I am doing
How can we bifurcate two abstract nouns without using image and words?
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"?
Would you please clarify 'speaker reference' and 'semantic reference'
It's really very informative lecture thankuuu sir💫😊
Sir , please tell the name of semantic theories ?
Always grateful Dr
Very knowledgeable
this is very clear sir!
Gteat explanaton
Thanks alot🌹🌹🌹
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
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.
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
Some concepts were hard but thank you!
Thank youuuuu