Two objections are raised against Oliver and Smiley’s analysis of the collective–distributive opposition in their 2016 book: They take it as a basic premise that the collective reading of ‘baked a cake’ corresponds to a predicate different from its distributive reading, and the same applies to all predicate expressions that admit both a collective and a distributive interpretation. At the same time, however, they argue that inflectional forms of the same lexeme reveal a univocity that should be preserved in (...) a formal representation of English. These two assumptions sit uneasily. In developing their analysis, Oliver and Smiley come to the conclusion that even a singular predication such as ‘Tom baked a cake’ must be regarded as ambiguous between a collective and a distributive reading. This is so artificial that it hardly makes sense, and yet there seems to be no way out of the difficulty unless we are prepared to give up the basic premise just mentioned. (shrink)

Lexical semantics has a problem. As Allesandro Lenci put it, the problem is that it cannot distinguish semantic from non-semantic relationships within its data. (2008, 2014). The data it relies on are patterns of co-occurrence of lexemes within linguistic corpora. But patterns of co-occurrence can reflect either our knowledge of what the world is like or our knowledge of what words mean -- matters of fact or matters of meaning. -/- In this essay, I develop a semantic theory which draws (...) this distinction in a way which makes it discernible in lexical semantics and cognitive science research. In doing so, this theory unifies truth-functional and structuralist approaches to semantics, and provides an integrated explanation of meaning and reference. -/- I base this semantic theory on linguistic dispositions to pair words with words, and to pair words with things, both based on learned patterns of association. These dispositions manifest themselves in verbal behavior, and (in Part 2) I propose a new neurophysical model to account for these dispositions which underlie both the intensional and extensional patterns in that behavior. (shrink)

Dalam tulisan Mempopulerkan Filsafat Indonesia ke Dunia (Majalah Ilmiah Bina Widya Vol.16, No.2, Agustus 2005), penulis telah menggunakan dua pendekatan untuk menjawab soal ‘adakah tradisi filsafat di Indonesia?’, yang salah satunya ialah pendekatan morfologi linguistik. Sebagai suatu cabang ilmu linguistik yang mempelajari kata-kata (words) dan bagian-bagiannya (word parts) seperti morfem (morpheme) dan leksem (lexeme), kategori semantik dan kategori gramatikal yang dimiliki keduanya, aturan ucap dan perubahan ucap dalam kombinasi keduanya, serta hubungan antar-kata dalam kalimat, morfologi linguistik amat berguna dalam (...) kaitannya dengan studi Filsafat Indonesia, utamanya untuk menggali khazanah kata-kata di Indonesia yang berhubungan dengan tradisi pemikiran abstrak Filsafat, yang dengannya akan ditemukan data￾data linguistik yang cukup valid, yang memungkinkan kita berasumsi dengan asumsi ilmiah yang memadai akan adanya tradisi kefilsafatan di Indonesia. (shrink)

У статті проаналізовано лексемний і семний склад мікрополя «повага», а також його системну організацію в українській мові. Компоненти значення, що функціонують у мікрополі, відбиваають семантику поваги, пошани щодо об’єкта почуття, яким для лексико-семантичного поля «патріотизм» виступають Батьківщина, власний народ, його закони, традиції, історія тощо.