What do you think?
Rate this book
What Is Meaning? Fundamentals of Formal Semantics.
What is Meaning? Fundamentals of Formal Semantics is a concise introduction to the field of semantics as it is actually practiced. Through simple examples, pictures, and metaphors, Paul Portner presents the field’s key ideas about how language works.
235 pages, paperback
First published February 4, 2005
8 people are currently reading
98 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
September 9, 2007
This is the clearest, most accessible introduction to formal semantics I have seen (and it's full of helpful diagrams). Reading this before taking Semantics I would have saved me a fair amount of confusion. Portner covers all kinds of topics that aren't very well known in philosophy, and does so in such a way that they sound interesting, especially the topics towards the end of the book on varieties of pragmatic theories (including dynamic semantics, which is something I'd like to find out more about).
This guy's a prof. at Georgetown. I'll have to meet up with him while I'm in town.
This guy's a prof. at Georgetown. I'll have to meet up with him while I'm in town.
July 20, 2018
I read this for work. It's an introductory textbook for undergraduates studying formal semantics. I felt like the first chapter, where he explored different things that "mean" could mean, was the most thought-provoking. Are meanings words? Are they concepts or ideas in the mind? Are they social practices? Do they exist out in the world? What he settles on are that meanings are best thought of as truth conditions, and that we build up from formal predicate logic and set theory to a full semantic theory.
There were lots of small asides that made me stop and think. For example: sometimes the word "and" means the intersection of sets: "Mary is a painter and a singer;" and sometimes it means union: "Mary and John left town." If I had known that before, I had forgotten it. He suggests that predicates don't carry a complete meaning by themselves: only complete propositions (sentences) can do that.
Whenever he drew an abstract set diagram, I thought about how it could be constructed as an actual object in the semantic vector space.
There were lots of small asides that made me stop and think. For example: sometimes the word "and" means the intersection of sets: "Mary is a painter and a singer;" and sometimes it means union: "Mary and John left town." If I had known that before, I had forgotten it. He suggests that predicates don't carry a complete meaning by themselves: only complete propositions (sentences) can do that.
Whenever he drew an abstract set diagram, I thought about how it could be constructed as an actual object in the semantic vector space.
Read
March 20, 2008As per previous commentator - a solid introduction.
More important, however, is a general grasp of semantics - we [that is, YOU] need to know about semantics and this book is a good way to get that knowledge. Why? Well, "The War on Terror" was so important as a phrase not 'cos it sounded good or anything poetical but because it, whilst not explicitly 'spelling it out', referenced a war [we're the good guys of course] where we remain 'human' even when shooting people because we're 'soldiers'. The other 'side' are terrorists so even if they are shot at, when they fire back, THAT'S terrorism - ergo indefensible. This isn't to say that anyone is right or wrong but just to point out that a 'dry' study - semantics - is much more relevant than we like to admit. When you've read this book or, at least some of it, try analysing the next political interview / newspaper article / etc that you read - a different viewpoint comes with my personal guarantee.
A.P.
More important, however, is a general grasp of semantics - we [that is, YOU] need to know about semantics and this book is a good way to get that knowledge. Why? Well, "The War on Terror" was so important as a phrase not 'cos it sounded good or anything poetical but because it, whilst not explicitly 'spelling it out', referenced a war [we're the good guys of course] where we remain 'human' even when shooting people because we're 'soldiers'. The other 'side' are terrorists so even if they are shot at, when they fire back, THAT'S terrorism - ergo indefensible. This isn't to say that anyone is right or wrong but just to point out that a 'dry' study - semantics - is much more relevant than we like to admit. When you've read this book or, at least some of it, try analysing the next political interview / newspaper article / etc that you read - a different viewpoint comes with my personal guarantee.
A.P.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews