Re: Biblical words are nolonger referential?
Posted: October 13th, 2021, 10:28 am
Cool - I'll be interested in his response
Thx
D
Thx
D
ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/
https://www.ibiblio.org:443/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5502
William, should I assume you were trying to say the same thing as the above book says on page 22?William Ross wrote: ↑October 13th, 2021, 8:52 am Hey there. Thanks to James Spinti for alerting me to this thread. I don't often haunt these hallowed halls, but I'll make a brief comment here. Honestly I'm not sure why this claim would be very breathtaking although apparently it does seem to have been misunderstood. The only point I am trying to make in this ~30-second comment is that meaning is conceptual (a core theoretical commitment of cognitive linguistics) and therefore, for words to have meaning they do not necessarily have to be referential. There is a good discussion of this idea in Kroeger (2019) 15-22 if you're interested. You can get the book open access (https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/231).
Of course, with the texts we are interested in, the referent may have been clear to both the speaker/writer and the original audience, but not to us. Scholars may debate what the referent is. Even if we know logically what the referent is, we may not have the same direct experience with it, e.g. few of us have ever actually reclined at table, fewer have ever had that experience as a regular part of life.If meaning was just denotation, then phrases like those in (12), which have no referent in our world at the present time, would all either mean the same thing, or be meaningless. But clearly they are not meaningless, and they do not all mean the same thing; they simply fail to refer.
(12) a. the present King of France
b. the largest prime number
c. the diamond as big as the Ritz
d. the unicorn in the garden
Frege’s distinction allows us to see that non-referring expressions like those in (12) may not have a referent, but they do have a sense, and that sense is derived in a predictable way by the normal rules of the language.
Can you expand on this? I don't have the book.RandallButh wrote: ↑October 13th, 2021, 12:32 pm Another useful book to follow Ross' thought might be
Ewa Walaszewska "Relevance-Theoretic Lexical Pragmatics" CUP 2015. 232pp. I'm currently reading it.
The frame approach to writing definitions (frame write-up in this study) enables the translator to access the referential event, cognitive understanding, non-verbal communication and symbolic gesture associated with a word or expression in a specific situation (§4.13). Hypothetically, the translator can then decide on which word or expression in the receptor language evokes a similar referential event in the receptor culture with a similar determinant meaning for the profiled word or expression. Where there is a mismatch or absence of similar concepts, the translator can then resort to Bible translation principles to bridge the gap; the translator has the relevant information needed in order to find a way to provide similar information in the receptor language.
Some Lexemes Associated with the Concept of JOY in Biblical Hebrew: A Cognitive Linguistic Investigation
April 2014 Michael L. Megahan/quote]
and immediately think it equates with "Biblical stories are fairy tales."Biblical words are nolonger referential
Thanks for chiming in. That’s sort of helpful and stuff I already knew, but I have to admit I’m still confused by what you meant when you said that “Biblical languages are no longer referential.” If they once were referential, what made them change? Philosophers might have a problem with the that fact that the tree Jesus was referring to no longer exists today, but that does not really seem to the sort of problem that creates difficulties for the student.William Ross wrote: ↑October 13th, 2021, 8:52 am Hey there. Thanks to James Spinti for alerting me to this thread. I don't often haunt these hallowed halls, but I'll make a brief comment here. Honestly I'm not sure why this claim would be very breathtaking although apparently it does seem to have been misunderstood. The only point I am trying to make in this ~30-second comment is that meaning is conceptual (a core theoretical commitment of cognitive linguistics) and therefore, for words to have meaning they do not necessarily have to be referential. There is a good discussion of this idea in Kroeger (2019) 15-22 if you're interested. You can get the book open access (https://langsci-press.org/catalog/book/231).