Sabtu, 19 November 2016

Expert's Biography

Diposting oleh Unknown di 04.16 0 komentar


Biography

 

            Pieter Albertus Maria Seuren (born July 9, 1934 in Haarlem), a Dutch linguist, is emeritus professor of Linguistics and Philosophy of Language at the Radboud University, Nijmegen, now a research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen. After finishing the St. Ignatius Gymnasium, Amsterdam, in 1951, he studied linguistics, together with classical languages and ancient history, at Amsterdam University from 1951 till 1958. He then taught Classics at a Junior College in Amsterdam till 1963. For a brief period he studied and worked under the guidance of the Amsterdam logician Evert Beth. This was followed by an assistantship at Groningen University, after which, in 1967, he was appointed as a lecturer in Linguistics at (Darwin College, Cambridge), where he stayed till 1970. In 1969 he obtained his PhD (‘’Operators and Nucleus’’) at the University of Utrecht. From 1970 till 1974 he was lecturer in Linguistics at Oxford University (Magdalen College). From there he moved to Radboud University in Nijmegen as a professor of Philosophy of Language. In 1995 his chair was changed to Theoretical Linguistics.
            Since his retirement in 1999 he has been a research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen. In 1982 he founded the ‘’Journal of Semantics’’. In 1988 he was elected member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Sciences. In 1996 he was awarded an honorary doctorate by Glasgow University. During his career he fulfilled visiting professorships in Sydney, Amsterdam, Zürich, Glasgow, Oxford, Penang, Bern, Mannheim, Maceió, Porto Alegre, Leipzig, Vienna, Stellenbosch, Florianópolis.
            His special fields of research are: the theory of grammar and meaning and their interrelations (1969, 1975, 1996, 2009); the role of logic (especially scope phenomena) in language (1969, 1975, 1985, 2010); the theory of ‘’Semantic Syntax’’ (1996); the analysis of the notion of meaning (1975, 2009); the theory of semantic presupposition and the trivalent logic required by it (1975, 1985, 2010); the analysis of the context-dependency of sentences in discourse (1985, 2009, 2010); the development of a natural logic on the basis of the natural meanings of logical operators in language (2010).
Besides his work in theoretical linguistics, Seuren is known as a historian of linguistics (1998). From c. 1980 to c. 1995 he took an active interest in Creole languages, in particular the English-based Surinam Creole Sranan, for which he devised a now legally sanctioned orthography, and the French-based Creole of the Indian Ocean island Mauritius. In this context, he co-founded, in 1980, together with Herman Wekker, the IBS (‘’Institute for the Advancement of Surinamese Studies’’) and the still flourishing Dutch-language periodical ‘’Oso’’ (Sranan for ‘house’).
His seminal publications include:
  • ‘’Operators and Nucleus. A Contribution to the Theory of Grammar’’. (diss. Univ. Utrecht) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1969.
  • ‘’Discourse Semantics’’. Blackwell, Oxford, 1985.
  • ‘’Semantic Syntax’’. Blackwell, Oxford, 1996.
  • ‘’Western Linguistics. An Historical Introduction’’. Blackwell, Oxford, 1998.
  • ‘’A View of Language’’. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.
  • ‘’Chomsky's Minimalism’’. Oxford University Press, New York/Oxford, 2004.
  • ‘’Language in Cognition’’. ‘’Language from Within’’ Vol. I) Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009.
  • ‘’The Logic of Language’’. ‘’Language from Within’’ Vol. II) Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010.
  • ‘’From Whorf to Montague: Explorations in the Theory of Language’’. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2013.

                       


 

Kamis, 20 Oktober 2016

Book Review ( The Handbook of Discourse Analysis)

Diposting oleh Unknown di 00.41 4 komentar


Book Review

A.    Book Identity
Title           : The Handbook of Discourse Analysis
Edited by :  Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton
Publisher   : Blackwell Publisher
Print publication date: 2003
Page          : i-xx, 817
Review part I page 76 (Discourse and Semantics) by Neal.R.Norrick

B.     Introduction
      This book contains about Discourse Analysis and the related topic with it. One part of this book is “Discourse and Semantics” written by Neal R. Norrick. His research specializations in linguistics include conversational narrative, verbal humor. He authored the first monograph dedicated to humor in conversation. He is expert in Semantics, Pragmatics, and Discourse Analysis.  He is a lecturer in Saarland University, he figures and prominent schools as they relate to primary areas of investigation from semantics, syntax and phonology to pragmatics and discourse analysis.
C.    Content Analysis
I.                   Introduction
      In these first contents, there is some definition of Semantics.
“Semantics” may have a number of meanings; those meanings are less irreconcilable than might at first appear. In 1883 Michel Bréal (Les lois intellectuelles du langage: Fragment de sémantique) defined semantics as the science of meaning, but when he came to publish his Essai de sémantique in 1897 he gave it the more general subtitle Science des significations, and only in chapter IX, in which he proposed to examine “by what causes words, once created and endowed with a certain meaning, are induced to restrict, to extend, to transfer this meaning from one order of ideas to another, to raise or to lower its dignity, in short to change it,” does he say “it is this second part which, properly speaking constitutes Semantics or the Science of Significations”. in the course of the debates on meaning, five areas of investigation have been identified, sometimes proceeding independently of each other, sometimes contradicting each other, and sometimes one of them presupposing—however a critically—the other:
1.                  Semantics as the study of the meaning of terms removed from any context (for instance, Carnap’s theory of meaning postulates, much of componential semantics, and the various forms of semic analysis, not to mention lexicography of every kind and tendency).
2.                  Semantics as the study of content systems or structural semantics (Hjelmslev and structural approaches to semantic fields in general et similia).
3.                  Semantics as the study of the relation between term (and sentence) and referent, or as the study of reference (for instance, Morris, Ogden, and Richards, much of analytic philosophy, and in primis Kripke). Let me remind the reader, however, of the distinction I posited in Kant and the Platypus between (i) providing instructions to identify the possible referent of a term and (ii) the act of reference itself.
4.                  Semantics as the study of the truth conditions of propositions expressed by sentences. 
5.                  Semantics as the study of the particular meaning that terms or sentences assume in context or in the text as a whole (this is a vast and variegated field that is concerned with the meaning of the same sentences in different contexts and circumstances, for which we may cite in first and foremost the later Wittgenstein, as well as the theory of different discursive. 
In this following paragraph, there is how the nation of meaning has increasingly become bound to discourse context. Discourse context has been evoked even more frequently to handle phenomena.
II.                The Shifting Paradigm
      Similarly, agents of change are driving a new paradigm shift today. The signs are all around us. For example, the introduction of the personal computer and the internet have impacted both personal and business environments, and is a catalyst for a Paradigm Shift. We are shifting from a mechanistic, manufacturing, industrial society to an organic, service based, information centered society, and increases in technology will continue to impact globally. Change is inevitable. It's the only true constant. Paradigm Shift as a change from one way of thinking to another. It's a revolution, a transformation, a sort of metamorphosis. It just does not happen, but rather it is driven by agents of change. Linguists began to feel the need for model inference to determine grammatically as well as meaning. Sociologists were showing that everyday conversation was not only regular and describable, but contained mechanism for clarifying and correcting factual content and linguistics form.
III.             Indexicality and Anaphora
      Indexicals are linguistic expressions whose meaning remain stable while their reference shifts from utterance to utterance. Paradigmatic cases in English are ‘I’, ‘here’, and ‘now’. Recently, a number of authors have argued that various constructions in our language harbor hidden indexical. Overt indexical can participate in anaphoric relationships. Often a single pronoun will have both indexical and anaphoric possibilities in sentence.  We must also find referents for third person pronouns like she and them within the local context or within the foregoing discourse.
IV.             Presupposition
      It is important to note that to call presupposition expressions “conventional” or “semantic” is not necessarily to imply that the presuppositions they trigger don't depend on the context in any way. For example, although “this” may be viewed as a conventional presupposition trigger, its interpretation very much depends on the context, obviously. What makes presuppositions special? That is, to the extent that presuppositions are just a part of the conventional meaning of some expressions, what makes them sufficiently distinctive that they merit their own entries in handbooks and encyclopedias, as well as many hundreds of other articles and book chapters elsewhere? First, presuppositions are ubiquitous. And second, there are various respects in which the behavior of presuppositions differs sharply from other aspects of meaning.
V.                Speech Acts
      Speech act is an utterance that serves a function in communication. We perform speech acts when we offer an apology, greeting, request, complaint, invitation, compliment, or refusal. A speech act might contain just one word, as in "Sorry!" to perform an apology, or several words or sentences: "I’m sorry I forgot your birthday. I just let it slip my mind." Speech acts include real-life interactions and require not only knowledge of the language but also appropriate use of that language within a given culture.
VI.             Entailment
      Entailment is a relation between sentence meanings, or propositions. a relationship between two sentences such that if the first is true, the second must also be true, as in Her son drives her to work every day and Her son knows how to drive.
VII.          Interpersonal
        Interpersonal really only has one meaning, so when you hear this word, you know you're hearing about interactions between people. Sometimes corporations find it useful to train their employees on any interpersonal skills they may be lacking, especially if they have a group of really socially awkward people, because it really does make the work environment a lot easier if your coworkers all get along with one another.
VIII.       Figurative Meaning
      Figurative meaning is the nature of or involving a figure of speech, especially a metaphor; metaphorical and not literal: The word “head” has several figurative senses, as in “She's the head of the company.” It also seen as has bound with context. There are hyperbole, irony, and metaphor.
IX.             Meta lingual Perspective on Figurative Meaning
      Metaphor is not generally perceived as discourse in-congruence the way contradiction is, we must glean what we can from “meta-lingual” comments about contradiction. Meta lingual talk resolve incongruity in discourse reveals three patterns. This discussion illustrates the value of examining metaphors in real life conversational contexts for an understanding of their meaning potential.


X.                Conclusion
                                    In the end, the writer tells that discourse can reveal the working of interpretive strategies which obviate the need for narrowly semantics or syntactic explanation. Discourse context makes up appreciate the interrelations of the semantics phenomena.  Meaning in this sense involves the speaker’s intention to convey a certain meaning which may not be evident in the message itself. In the sentence ‘There’s a fly in my soup’, the message is that ‘There is a fly in my soup’ in which the speaker’s intention may be to complain. So the meaning of the utterance contains the meaning of complaint. A hearer hearing this sentence may interpret it not just as a statement but as a request to take the soup away. That is, the meaning will include some intended effect on the hearer.
      In order to analyses discourse, it may be necessary to consider all aspects of language: the grammatical as well as the semantic and pragmatic (not forgetting the role of intonation). Grammatical forms which are used to link sentences and create cohesion can be of several kinds: logical connectors such as ‘and’, ‘but’; conjuncts such as ‘also’, ‘equally’, ‘furthermore’, contrast such as ‘instead’ and similarly, ‘for’ ‘thus’. Deictic elements such as ‘here’, ‘there’, also indicate other references and are thus important in creating cohesion as well as discourse meaning.
      That is all about the review of one part of the book. In my opinion this book has so many benefits in Discourse Analysis Topics.
Thank you for always read and never forget saying Alhamdulillah.
 

Tuanputeri Template by Ipietoon Blogger Template | Gadget Review