Chapter I

Word meanings and concepts

A. Background of The Paper

As a dynamic element, language is always analyzed and studied in various approaches,

among others through the meaning approach, while semantics is a component of language that cannot
be released in linguistic conversation. Without discussing the meaning, linguistic discussion is not
considered complete because the act of speaking is nothing more than an attempt to convey those
meanings. Speeches that are meaningless have no meaning at all (Parera, 2004: 17).

Language is a communication tool that is inseparable from the meaning or meaning of each
arbitrary word (arbitrary, arbitrary, not fixed, which one is like). This means that there is no
mandatory relationship between the symbol of language (which is tangible) with the concept or
meaning referred to by the symbol (Chaer, 2007: 45).

We certainly already know about the two terms "meaning" and "mean". Generally people
assume that "meaning" and "mean" are the same. Even though this is not the case. Both terms contain
different meanings.

Meaning is denotation. While meaning is connotation. Sometimes the "mean" is in harmony

with "meaning" and sometimes not aligned. If the meaning of something is the same as the meaning
of something, then the meaning is called the Explicit Mean. If the meaning is not in harmony with the
"meaning", then something is called having the Implicit Meaning or Necessary Meaning. Therefore,
this paper was made so that we better understand what is meant by meaning.

B. Formulation of The Problem

According to the background of study, the writers make some research questions. The general
questions are:

1. What is word meaning in semantic?

2. What de we find in Grammatical Words and Categories?
3. What do we find in Words and Lexical Parts?
4. What do we find in Problems with Pinning Down Word Meaning?
5. What is conceptual meaning in semantic?
 C. Objective of The Paper

Based on the formulation of the problem, the aims of the paper are:

1. To know the word meaning in semantic

2. To know about Grammatical Words and Categories
3. To know about Words and Lexical Parts
4. To know about Problems with Pinning Down Word Meaning
5. To know the conceptual meaning in semantic
 Chapter II

Theory

1. The meaning of the word

The meaning is the relationship between form and reference. For example, the word home
means residence. The series of sounds h-o-u-s-e is a form of a word, whereas a place to live is
something that is referred to by the form of the word.

Semantic lexical goals are: to show how the meaning of words in language is interrelated. The
meaning of a word is defined as its relation to another word in language. We can follow the
structuralist that has something to do with others, even though the words don't exist. As an example
below:

I saw my mother just now.

We know, without further information, that the speaker sees a woman. As we will see, there
are several ways to see it: first is to say that this k nowledge is related between saying the word
mother and related, but the word woman is not spoken, which represents the link in vocabulary.
Another approach is to claim that the word mother contains a woman's semantic element as part of its
meaning.

Whatever our view of this, it is easy to show that lexical relationships are central to the way
speakers and listeners build meaning. One example is by looking at the various types of speaker
conclusions from his words. See, for example, the following sentences, where English speakers might
agree that each sentence b follows automatically (where we assume as usual that repeating nominal
has the same reference), whereas sentence c, may be reasonable inference in context, do not follow
this automatic method:

1.

a. My bank manager was just killed.

b. My bank manager died.
c. My bank will get a new manager.
 2.

a. Rob has failed the statistical exam.

b. Rob hasn't passed the statistical exam yet.
c. Rob can't bank on a glittering career as a statistician.

3.

a. This bike belongs to Sinead.

b. Sinead has this bicycle.
c. Sinead rides a bicycle

The relationship between sentences a and b in (1-3) is called entailment , This is a sign that
the conclusion from a to c is of a different type of entailment relationship between a and b. This
entailment relationship is important here because in this example it is a reflection of our lexical
knowledge; the entailments in the sentence can be seen from the semantic relationship between
murder and death, failure and pass, and possession and possession.

As we will see, there are various types of relations between words, and this has been
investigated by poets, philosophers, legal writers and others for centuries. The study of the meaning of
words, especially changes that seem to take place from time to time, is also a philological, and
lexicological concern. As a result of differences in the meaning of the word a number of terms have
developed that describe the differences and similarities of the meaning of the word.

2. Grammatical Words and Categories

It is clear that the categories of grammar such as nouns, prepositions etc., although defined in
modern linguistics at the syntactic and morphological level, give rise to semantic differences:
different categories of words must be given different semantic descriptions. To take a few examples:
names of common nouns, pronouns and what we call logical words. All show different characteristics
of reference and taste:

1. Name; Firnanda

2. Common nouns; dog, banana

3. pronouns; me, he, you, them

4. Logical words; no, and, or, all

 Looking at the types of words, we can say that they operate in different ways: some types can
be used to refer (eg names), others may not (eg logical words); words that can only be interpreted in
certain contexts (such as pronouns), others are very consistent in the meaning of various contexts (eg
logical words): and so on. It also seems that semantic links tend to continue between members of the
same group rather than different groups, so the semantic relationship between common nouns such as
men, women, animals etc. is clearer than between each noun and words such as and, or, not and vice
versa.

Also note that this is only a category choice; we must take into account others such as verbs,
adjectives, adverbs, prepositions and others.

3. Words and Lexical Parts

We will follow the general linguistic tradition and assume that we must have a list of all the
words in the language, along with special information about them; and call it body information,
dictionary or lexicon. Our interests in semantics are with lexemes or semantic words, and, as we will
see, there are a number of ways to list this in a lexicon. But first we have to check this word unit.
Words can be identified at the level of writing, where we are familiar with those separated by spaces,
where we can call them orthographic words. They can also be identified at the phonological level,
where they are sound strings that can show internal structures that do not occur outside the word, and
syntax, where the same semantic words can be represented by several different grammatical variants.
So walks, walking, walked in 3.6 under three different grammatical words.

a. He walks like a duck.

b. He’s walking like a duck.
c. He walked like a duck.

However, for semantics we will want to say this is an example of the same lexeme, the verb
goes. We can then say that our three grammatical words share the meaning of the lexeme. This
abstraction from the grammatical word semantic words is already familiar to us from published
dictionaries, where lexicographers use abstract entries such as going, sleeping, walking, etc. for the
purpose of explaining the meaning of words, and we are not really worried what too much
grammatical status the reference form has. In Samuel Johnson's English Dictionary, for example,
infinitives are used as registration forms, or lemma, for verbs, giving us entries wanting to walk,
sleep, etc. (Johnson 1983), but now most of us are used for dictionaries and we accept abstract
dictionary forms for identify semantic words.

Our discussion so far has assumed the ability to identify words. Airlines don't seem to assume
too much in ordinary life, but there are some well-known problems in trying to identify the word as a
well-defined linguistic unit. One traditional problem is how to combine the various levels of
application of words, mentioned above, for the overall definition: what is the word? As Edward Sapir
notes, it is not good to just use the definition of semantics as a basis, because the language packs in
the speakers are meaningful in words in very different ways:

Our first impulse, no doubt, is sure to define the word as a symbolic, single concept linguistic
partner. We now know that this definition is impossible. Actually it is not possible to define a word
from a functional point of view at all. For a word maybe anything from a single concept expression -
concrete or purely relational abstract (as in or by or and) - to complete thought expressions (as in dico
Latin 'I say' or, with elaborateness greater form, as in word form work that shows Nootka "I am used
to eating twenty round objects [for example apples] when involved in [doing so and so]"). In the latter
case the word becomes identical to the sentence. The word is only a form, a definite body formed
which takes as much or as little from conceptual material throughout thought as a language genius
cares for possible. (Sapir 1949a: 32)

Then why bother trying to find a universal definition? The problem is that in very many
languages, the word seems to have some psychological reality for speakers, a fact also noted by Sapir
from his work on Native American languages:

Linguistic experience, both as expressed in standards, written form and as tested in everyday
use, shows very much that there is no, as a rule, the slightest difficulty in carrying the word for
consciousness as a psychological reality. There is no more convincing test to be desired from this, that
is naive of India, quite familiar with the concept of written words, but has serious difficulties in
dictating the text to the words of linguistic students for word; it tends, of course, to carry out His word
together as in a real speech, but if it is called a stop and is made to understand what is desired, it can
easily isolate such words, repeating them as units. '. It makes no sense "He regularly refuses, on the
other hand, to isolate radical or grammatical elements, on the grounds that it is (Sapir 1949a: 33-4)

One answer to switching from semantic definition to grammatical one, like Leonard
Bloomfield's famous definition:

A word, then, is a free form which is not entirely composed of (two or more) lower free
forms; in short, the word is the minimum free form. Because only free forms can be isolated from
actual speech, the word, as a minimal free form, plays a very important part in our attitude towards
language. For daily life purposes, words are the smallest unit of speech. (Bloomfield 1984: 178)

This definition of distribution identifies words as independent elements, which show their
independence by being able to occur in isolation, namely to form one-word utterances. This really
works well for most cases, but leaves elements like, that. And I'm in a gray area. Speakers seem to
feel that these are words, and write them separately, in a car, my car etc., but they don't happen as a
single word, and neither do words with this definition. Bloomfield, of course, is aware of the case:

None of these criteria can be strictly applied: many forms lie on the line-line between the
form of sound and words, or between words and phrases; it is impossible to make a rigid difference
between possible shapes and shapes that may not be spoken in absolute positions. (Bloomfield 1984:
181)

There are other suggestions for how to define grammatical words: Lyons (1968), for example,
discusses another distribution definition, this time based on the extent to which morphemes remain
united. This idea is that the attachment between the elements in the word will be stronger than the will
of the attachment between the words themselves. This is indicated by numbering morphemes as in
3.11, and then trying to reset them as in 3.12:

3.11

Internal cohesion (Lyons 1968: 202-4)

the1 + boy2 + S3 ++ Walk4 + Ed5 + slow6 + + ly7 + up8 ++ The9 + hill10

3.12

a. slow6 + ly7 ++ the1 + boy2 + s3 + walk4 + ed5 + up8 ++ The9 + hill10

b. up8 + The9 + hill10 + slow6 + ly7 + walk4 + ed5 + + the1 boy2 + s3
c. * S3 ++ boy2 + the1
d. * ed5 + walk4

This works well to distinguish between words and walk slowly, but as we can see also leaves
as a problem case. It behaves like a bound morpheme from an independent word: we can no longer
say * boys than we can say only in isolation.

We can leave the debate at the moment: that words seem to be identified at the level of
grammar, but that there will be, like Bloomfield said, the boundary case. As we said before, the
approach is usual in semantics.

4. Problems with Pinning Down Word Meaning

Because each speaker knows if asked the meaning of a particular word, the meaning of the
word is slippery. Different native speakers may feel they know the meaning of a word, but then come
up with a somewhat different definition. In other words they might just feel vague and have to use a
dictionary to check. Some of these difficulties arise from the influence of the context of the meaning
of words, as discussed by Firth (1957), Halliday (1966) and Lyons (1963). It is usually easier to
specify words if you are given a phrase or the sentence is in it. Contextual effects seem to attract the
meaning of words in two opposite directions. The first, limiting influence is the tendency for words to
occur together repeatedly, called collocation. Halliday (1966), for example, compares the collocation
patterns of two strong and powerful adjectives, which may seem to have the same meaning. Although
we can use both for several items, such as strong arguments and powerful arguments, wherever there
is a collocation effect. For example, we speak strong teat rather than powerful tea, but a powerful car
rather than a strong car. Similarly collocates blond with hair and addle with eggs. As Gruber (1965)
notes, names for groups act like this: we say a herd, even a herd of dogs.

These collocations can undergo fossilizations until they become fixed expressions. We talk
about hot and cold water rather than cold and hot water, and say that they are husband and wife, not
wife and husband. Fixed expressions like this are common with food: salt and vinegar, fish and chips,
curry and rice, bangers and mash, Franks and beans, etc..7 Similar types of fossilization in the
creation of idioms, expressions of individual words has stopped having an independent meaning. In
phrases such as friends and relatives or spicks and ranges, few who speak English will be able to
establish the meaning of friends or range.

Contextual effects can also draw the meaning of words in another direction, towards
creativity and semantic shift. In different contexts, for example, nouns like running can have
somewhat different meanings, as in the example below:

a. I go for run every morning.

b. The tail-end batsmen added a single run before lunch.

c. The ball-player hit a home run.

d. We took the new car for a run.

e. He built a new run for his chikens.

f. There's a run on the dollar.

g. The bears are here for the salmon run.

The problem is how to see the relationship between run above. Are seven different meanings
of the word run? Or are examples of the same meaning influenced by different contexts? That is, there
are some vague general meanings that enough plastic must be made to suit different contexts triggered
by other words such as batsmen, chikens and the dollar? The answer may not be simple: some cases,
for example b and c, or maybe, a, b and c. seems to be more closely related than others. Some authors
have explained this difference in terms of ambiguity and obscurity. the submission of each run
meaning in the example above is a different taste, then run is seven ambiguous ways, but if g share the
same meaning, run run between different uses. The basic idea is that in the example of context
vagueness can add information that is not specified in meaning, but in the example the ambiguity of
the context will cause one of the senses to be chosen. The problem, of course, is to decide, for each
example given, whether someone is dealing with ambiguity or obscurity. Several tests have been
proposed, but they are difficult. The main reason is context. This means that we must use some
ingenuity in conducting ambiguity tests; usually they create sentences and contexts where both
readings can be available. We can briefly examine several tests that have been proposed.

One test proposed by Kempson (1997) relies on the use of an abbreviatory form such as doing it,
doing it too, so it is done. This is a short form used to avoid repeating verb phrases, for example:

a. Charlie hates mayonnaise and so is Mary

b. He took the form and the sean did too.

Expressions like this can be understood because there is an identity convention between those
expressions and the previous verb phrases: thus we know that in a sentence we hate mayonnaise. and
b Sean took the form. The Kempson test relies on this identity: if the previous verb phrase must be
kept the same as the following clause do so.

For example a below has two interpretations in b and c;

a. Duffy finds a mole

b. Duffy

5. Conceptual meaning

In semantics, conceptual meaning is the literal or core sense of a word. Also

called denotation or cognitive meaning. Contrast with connotation, affective meaning, and figurative
meaning.

In Componential Analysis of Meaning, linguist Eugene A. Nida observed that conceptual

meaning "consists of that set of necessary and sufficient conceptual features which make it possible
for the speaker to separate the referential potentiality of any one lexical unit from that of any other
unit which might tend to occupy part of the same semantic domain."

Conceptual meaning ("the central factor in linguistic communication") is one of the seven
types of meaning identified by Geoffrey Leech in Semantics: The Study of Meaning (1981). The other
six types of meaning discussed by Leech are connotative, social, affective, reflected, collocative, and
thematic.

Examples and Observations

 "Conceptual meaning may be defined as logical meaning, the meaning used to convey ideas
in order to describe the world."
(Andrew Goatly, Meaning and Humour. Cambridge University Press, 2012)

"It has long been acknowledged, and is indeed popularly assumed, that the major function of
human language is that of expressing a conceptual content, of conveying information. . . . Utterances
which have no ideational content are restricted to interjections like Ouch, Yippee, and Tally-ho,
which, functionally, have more in common perhaps with animal communication than with the rest of
human language."(Geoffrey N. Leech, Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. John Benjamins,
1980)

Conceptual Meaning vs. Associative Meaning

"Conceptual meaning covers those basic, essential components of meaning that are
conveyed by the literal use of a word. It is the type of meaning that dictionaries are designed to
describe. Some of the basic components of a word like needle in English might include 'thin, sharp,
steel instrument.' These components would be part of the conceptual meaning of needle. However,
different people might have different associations or connotations attached to a word like needle.
They might associate it with 'pain,' or 'illness,' or 'blood,' or 'drugs,' or 'thread,' or 'knitting,' or 'hard to
find' (especially in a haystack). These types of associations are not treated as part of the word's
conceptual meaning."(George Yule, The Study of Language, 5th ed. Cambridge University Press,
2014)

Recognizing Word Boundaries

"If a group of language learners are shown three or four examples of a drinking vessel and
told that each one is a 'cup,' they will quickly establish some of the features that constitute a 'cup' in
English. . . . However, unlike a word such as 'sun' or 'moon,' which refers to a single fixed entity, 'cup'
is relatively indeterminate in meaning. Subtle differences in material, shape or function are all
sufficient for the object to cease being a cup (in English). Languages rarely divide up the world in
exactly the same way, and so we should not be surprised if we find students using the word 'cup' to
describe an object which is in fact a 'glass,' a 'mug,' or even a 'bowl.' Even students whose mother
tongue categorises this group of objects in the same way as English, cannot be sure that this is the
case until they have learnt it. To understand a word fully, therefore, a student must know not only
what it refers to, but also where the boundaries are that separate it from words of related meaning."
(Ruth Gairns and Stuart Redman, Working With Words: A Guide to Teaching and Learning
Vocabulary. Cambridge University Press, 1986)

The Lighter Side of Conceptual Meaning

Violet Baudelaire: Sunny, how's that pot coming?
Sunny: Voila!
Klaus Baudelaire: Uh, Sunny, that's not a pot. That's a spitoon.
Violet Baudelaire: A spitoon? You mean like . . . ?
Klaus Baudelaire: [nods in disgust]
Violet Baudelaire: We'll wash it twice.
(Emily Browning, Kara Hoffman, and Liam Aiken in Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate
Events, 2004)
 Chapter III

Conclusion

A. Conclusion

In the discussion above we can conclude that the meaning is the relationship between form
and reference. Different categories of words must be given different semantic descriptions. In general
linguistics assume that we must have a list of all the words in language. In the above explanation also
mentioned the existence of ambiguous or double-meaning word problems. So we as language
observers must be able to interpret words correctly according to the context of each sentence.

That meaning is essentially conceptual in nature is one of the central tenets of cognitive
linguistics. The best introduction to cognitive linguistics currently available is Ungerer and Schmid
(1996). Ultimately, a reader interested in this approach will eventually want to tackle the foundational
text. The 'bible' of the cognitive approach is Langacker's two-volume Foundations of Cognitive
Grammar (1987 and 1991a). However, this is not an easy read; fortunately, many of the basic topics
are expounded in a much more accessible form in Langacker (1991b). The interested reader will also
find articles on a wide range of cognitive linguistic topics in the journal Cognitive Linguistics.

B. Sugesstion

As a human being realize that in the paper, there are still many shortcoming and problems,
although we have tried as much as possible, but that the result of many efforts. Therefore, criticisme
and suggestion that readers are very motivated as we would expect for many suggestion for the future
 REFERENCE

Aminuddin. 2001. Semantics (Introduction to the Study of Meanings). Bandung: Sinar Baru
Algensindo.

Chaer, Abdul. 2007. General Linguistics. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta.

Seed, John. L., semantics (second edition) Blackwell publishing, 2003