Modus Barbara: logical-phenomenological experiment of the explanation of the emoji language

In the paper the sign of the emoji language is investigated through the logical-linguistic lense. The authors conclude that the explanation of the content plane and expression plane of an optical sign (and therefore a non-linear one), due to the bilaterality of its structure, is inexhaustible, since the optics of emoji include psychophysiological factors that appeal to the linguistic and extralinguistic elements of the formation of the signs. Consequently, the substrate for the investigation of the emoji sign is nominated as polyilaterality. The latter allows the synthesis of the structural (logical) level and the conceptual (phenomenological) level of the explanation of the sign, because the content plane and the expression plane of the optical sign is both in its form and in the semantic load. The study focuses on an empirical experiment initiated by the authors: a survey created on the basis of a Google Forms "Emoji Association", containing 147 perceptions and interpretations of emoji signs. The experiment is tested through G. Frege's semantic triangle, which schematically demonstrates a bilateral approach to the word content plane, depending on both the abstract denotation (proper word) and the specific meaning (word meaning). With an emphasis on polyilaterality and its verification, hypothetical-deductive syllogisms are created (in particular, according to the sign investigated in the paper, a syllogism is created in the modus of the first Barbara figure, AAA), which includes interpretive-lexemes, which, according to the digital analysis of the responses using the Voyant Tools web application, are more common in frequency. Therefore, the authors approbate the verification of the meaning of the emoji sign using such science as logic, which visualizes the denotation and individual interpretations of the sign in the true-false dichotomy. According to the results of the experimental logical-linguistic approach to the investigation of the emoji sign, it is concluded that the logical tools used in the article disclose the fractalization of the forms of the agrammatism of the emoji sign with their verbal versions of the formants with subsequent verification of both.

The meaning of fashion: A qualitative study with students in Romania

This article discusses the results of a focus-group-based qualitative study that was conducted with the students of two universities in Romania, with the aim to reveal their discourses regarding the meaning of fashion. The findings suggest that students define fashion through a complex semantic triangle of three inter-related concepts: fashion ‐ style ‐ being well-dressed. In this tripartite model, fashion receives mostly negative connotations compared with style, which is defined as a micro-level, personal take on fashion, i.e. it has agency, whereas fashion is defined as being at the macro-level and is accused of enforcing normativity and homogeneity. The meaning of being well-dressed refers mostly to dress codes and to the wearing of clothes that symbolize and signal social status, rather than to fashionable clothes. With such findings, it is possible to claim that the interviewees are ‘soft challengers’ of fashion: they are revolting against the normativity of fashion and seek to emphasize their agency when they put together an outfit. However, as much as possible, they try to respect the normative expectations of situational dress codes. When the three concepts were considered separately by the interviewees, each revealed several sub-dimensions/themes.

Ogden and Richards Proposed Theories: A Brief Overlook as a Prominent Reference for the Current Studies

The purpose of this article is to find out whether the Ogden and Richard theories are still worthy of being a reference for the current situation. This study intended to review the theories that are highly popular in the semantic environment. Ogden and Richard's theory is one of the most popular semantic theories in linguistics. This theory is a very simple theory related to thought/reference, symbol and referent. Besides, this theory is often referred to as a triangle of meaning and a semiotic triangle. Many researchers try to review the Ogden and Richard theory (Theory Triangle) based on the understanding and perspective of the researchers. This study described and compared the similarity and difference between five (5) studies on the triangle of meaning proposed by Ogden and Richard (1923) this study the analysis and employed a comparative study as a qualitative study in nature. This study explored five (5) articles e.g...“Ogden and Richards‟ The Meaning of Meaning and early analytic philosophy, Semantic Triangle and Linguistic Sign, Controversies and Misunderstandings about Meaning: On the reception of Ogden and Richards book, (The Meaning of Meaning), Theories of Semantics; Merits and Limitations, Research on Translation Based on Semantic Triangle Theory”. This study sees that the theory of from Ogden and Richards is still worthy of being a reference until now. The studies being used as lens seems giving their positive credits to their study. This means that Ogden and Richards somehow acknowledged being as a prominent study in their field until now.

Ogden and Richards Proposed Theories: A Brief Overlook as a Prominent Reference for the Current Studies

The purpose of this article is to find out whether the Ogden and Richard theories are still worthy of being a reference for the current situation. This study intended to review the theories that are highly popular in the semantic environment. Ogden and Richard's theory is one of the most popular semantic theories in linguistics. This theory is a very simple theory related to thought/reference, symbol and referent. Besides, this theory is often referred to as a triangle of meaning and a semiotic triangle. Many researchers try to review the Ogden and Richard theory (Theory Triangle) based on the understanding and perspective of the researchers. This study described and compared the similarity and difference between five (5) studies on the triangle of meaning proposed by Ogden and Richard (1923) this study the analysis and employed a comparative study as a qualitative study in nature. This study explored five (5) articles e.g...“Ogden and Richards’ The Meaning of Meaning and early analytic philosophy, Semantic Triangle and Linguistic Sign, Controversies and Misunderstandings about Meaning: On the reception of Ogden and Richards book, (The Meaning of Meaning), Theories of Semantics; Merits and Limitations, Research on Translation Based on Semantic Triangle Theory”. This study sees that the theory of from Ogden and Richards is still worthy of being a reference until now. The studies being used as lens seems giving their positive credits to their study. This means that Ogden and Richards somehow acknowledged being as a prominent study in their field until now.

КОНЦЕПЦИЯ СМЕХА В ФИЛОСОФИИ ПРАГМАТИЗМА

The paradox in the title can be explained by the seeming in compatability of laughter and philosophy, since there appears to be little in common between fundamental problems of philosophy and a fleeting, emotional and situational outburst of laughter.This paradox becomes less unexpected if viewed through the context of interrelation between philosophy and linguistics as was suggested by early pragmatists. Their postulates were developed in the theory of the so called «linguistic turn», within which this interrelation became the most important methodological concept. It postulated that thought is objectivizedin the process of social usage of language. Its rules are regulated by the consensus of the language community as to what is right / wrong concerning language rules / norms and validity of truth criteria of judgments and statements.No less significant is the cognitive value of the seme and the frequency of its usage. The more the seme is needed, the more plastic it becomes within the semantic triangle where it functions. Since there is no absolute coincidence in similar life situations, verbal symbols expressing ideas, things, phenomena, often tend to be used in a transferred sense to better express the unique character of a given reality.Cognitive change and mobility in the semantic structure of the word laughter is a good example of this tendency. In Rodale thesaurus itsseme is realized in 29 verbal symbols. The seme of humor, correlated with it, is expressed in 183 verbal units. If to add to them cognitively kindred semes – fun, joviality, gaiety, hilarity, mirth – together with their synonyms and derivatives – the number of verbal units will grow immensely. This wide choice of ways to express a notion shows its cognitive importance. Laughter as a purely human feature is indispensible for understanding human life and thus acquires a deep philosophical significance. Classical pragmatists, W. James, J. Dewey, F. C. S. Schiller, to name only a few, considered laughter as a handy and useful tool by means of which man can determine the difference between good and bad. He can do it by referring to the wealth of his native language and by using it to understand and make himself understood.

The Theory of semantic triangle in the western linguistic criticism and Arabic reception

The most important reason that made me concerned with the theory of the semantic triangle is the confusion I have noticed amongst Arab scholars regarding limitations of the theory itself and its value compared with other theories of meaning. My paper is divided into three sections: the first is concerned with illustrating what the theory is by tracing its historical origins in the western linguistic traditions, the second reveals the most important criticized aspects of the theory, and the third deals with how the Arab scholars received the theory.

Questioning the univocity ideal. The difference between socio-cognitive Terminology and traditional Terminology

In this article we are questioning the univocity ideal of traditional Terminology. We show how traditional Terminology in line with Saussurian structuralism ignores part of the interplay between the elements of the semantic triangle. Cognitive semantics and functional linguistics have offered an alternative for the Saussurian structuralist approach. Several of their findings can be of use for the development of socio-cognitive Terminology.In the LSP of the life sciences, the structure of concepts reflects their episte-mological function. This could have consequences for the principles and methods of terminological description. While some concepts (like intron ) are clear-cut and can therefore be submitted to the principle of univocity, others (like blotting and biotech-nology) have prototype structure. For prototypically structured categories univocity can not be the aim as polysemy, synonymy and figurative language are part of their naming history.