Intimidate Meaning In Hindi
Intimidate Meaning In Hindi. मौखिक गाली या धमकी देना.। अमरीकी रक्षा विभाग के (u.s. Intimidate meaning in hindi is भयभीत करना.
The relation between a sign as well as its significance is known as"the theory that explains meaning.. We will discuss this in the following article. we'll review the problems with truth-conditional theories of meaning, Grice's theory of speaker-meaning, as well as an analysis of the meaning of a sign by Tarski's semantic model of truth. Also, we will look at arguments against Tarski's theory of truth.
Arguments against the truth-based theories of significance
Truth-conditional theories regarding meaning claim that meaning is a function of the conditions for truth. But, this theory restricts interpretation to the linguistic phenomenon. He argues the truth of values is not always accurate. Therefore, we should be able to differentiate between truth-values from a flat statement.
The Epistemic Determination Argument is an attempt to justify truth-conditional theories about meaning. It is based on two basic assumption: the omniscience of non-linguistic facts, and knowledge of the truth-condition. But Daniel Cohnitz has argued against these premises. This argument therefore is not valid.
A common issue with these theories is the implausibility of meaning. But, this issue is dealt with by the mentalist approach. Meaning is analysed in words of a mental representation, instead of the meaning intended. For example, a person can have different meanings for the same word when the same person uses the exact word in the context of two distinct contexts yet the meanings associated with those terms can be the same when the speaker uses the same word in various contexts.
Though the vast majority of theories that are based on the foundation of meaning try to explain the meaning in way of mental material, non-mentalist theories are often pursued. This is likely due to doubts about mentalist concepts. These theories are also pursued in the minds of those who think that mental representations should be studied in terms of linguistic representation.
Another prominent defender of this belief A further defender Robert Brandom. He is a philosopher who believes that meaning of a sentence in its social context and that speech activities with a sentence make sense in what context in the situation in which they're employed. So, he's developed a pragmatics theory to explain sentence meanings through the use of rules of engagement and normative status.
Problems with Grice's study of speaker-meaning
Grice's analysis to understand speaker-meaning places major emphasis upon the speaker's intention and its relation to the significance of the statement. He claims that intention is an abstract mental state that needs to be understood in order to comprehend the meaning of an expression. Yet, this analysis violates speaker centrism by analyzing U-meaning without considering M-intentions. Additionally, Grice fails to account for the fact that M-intentions don't have to be strictly limited to one or two.
Additionally, Grice's analysis doesn't take into consideration some significant instances of intuitive communication. For example, in the photograph example in the previous paragraph, the speaker cannot be clear on whether he was referring to Bob or wife. This is because Andy's photo doesn't specify whether Bob or wife are unfaithful or faithful.
Although Grice believes that speaker-meaning is more fundamental than sentence-meaning, there's still room for debate. In reality, the distinction is vital to the naturalistic acceptance of non-natural meaning. In the end, Grice's mission is to give naturalistic explanations that explain such a non-natural significance.
To comprehend a communication we must first understand the intent of the speaker, and that's an intricate embedding of intents and beliefs. We rarely draw sophisticated inferences about mental states in typical exchanges. Consequently, Grice's analysis of speaker-meaning doesn't align with the real psychological processes that are involved in the comprehension of language.
While Grice's story of speaker-meaning is a plausible explanation about the processing, it is not complete. Others, like Bennett, Loar, and Schiffer, have developed more thorough explanations. These explanations tend to diminish the credibility on the Gricean theory since they view communication as an act of rationality. The reason audiences believe in what a speaker says since they are aware of the speaker's intentions.
It also fails to explain all kinds of speech act. Grice's analysis fails to take into account the fact that speech actions are often employed to explain the meaning of sentences. In the end, the value of a phrase is reduced to the meaning of the speaker.
Issues with Tarski's semantic theory of truth
Although Tarski claimed that sentences are truth-bearing it doesn't mean a sentence must always be truthful. Instead, he aimed to define what is "true" in a specific context. His theory has since become the basis of modern logic and is classified as a correspondence or deflationary.
One problem with this theory of reality is the fact that it is unable to be applied to any natural language. This issue is caused by Tarski's undefinability thesis, which says that no bivalent language can have its own true predicate. Although English may seem to be in the middle of this principle This is not in contradiction with Tarski's theory that natural languages are semantically closed.
But, Tarski leaves many implicit constraints on his theory. For example, a theory must not include false sentences or instances of the form T. In other words, it is necessary to avoid any Liar paradox. Another flaw in Tarski's philosophy is that it is not aligned with the theories of traditional philosophers. In addition, it's impossible to explain every instance of truth in the ordinary sense. This is a major problem for any theories of truth.
Another problem is that Tarski's definitions requires the use of notions taken from syntax and set theory. They're not appropriate for a discussion of endless languages. The style of language used by Henkin is well-established, however, it doesn't match Tarski's concept of truth.
A definition like Tarski's of what is truth also difficult to comprehend because it doesn't take into account the complexity of the truth. Truth for instance cannot play the role of a predicate in the theory of interpretation, and Tarski's principles cannot explain the semantics of primitives. Further, his definition of truth does not fit with the concept of truth in interpretation theories.
However, these limitations will not prevent Tarski from using his definition of truth and it doesn't fit into the definition of'satisfaction. In fact, the proper definition of truth is not as simple and is based on the specifics of the language of objects. If you're interested in knowing more, take a look at Thoralf Skolem's 1919 paper.
Issues with Grice's analysis of sentence-meaning
Grice's problems with his analysis of the meaning of sentences can be summarized in two main points. First, the purpose of the speaker needs to be understood. Second, the speaker's wording must be accompanied with evidence that confirms the intended effect. But these conditions are not fulfilled in every case.
This issue can be addressed through a change in Grice's approach to sentences to incorporate the significance of sentences that lack intentionality. This analysis is also based on the premise that sentences are complex and contain several fundamental elements. Therefore, the Gricean analysis fails to recognize counterexamples.
This criticism is particularly problematic as it relates to Grice's distinctions of meaning of the speaker and sentence. This distinction is essential to any naturalistically based account of sentence-meaning. The theory is also fundamental for the concept of conversational implicature. This theory was developed in 2005. Grice introduced a fundamental concept of meaning that was further developed in subsequent documents. The fundamental concept of the concept of meaning in Grice's research is to take into account the speaker's motives in understanding what the speaker intends to convey.
Another issue with Grice's model is that it fails to account for intuitive communication. For example, in Grice's example, it's unclear what Andy is referring to when he says that Bob is unfaithful and unfaithful to wife. But, there are numerous counterexamples of intuitive communication that are not explained by Grice's theory.
The premise of Grice's approach is that a speaker's intention must be to provoke an emotion in people. However, this argument isn't philosophically rigorous. Grice establishes the cutoff according to contingent cognitive capabilities of the speaker and the nature communication.
Grice's analysis of sentence-meaning is not very credible, even though it's a plausible account. Other researchers have developed more specific explanations of meaning, yet they are less plausible. In addition, Grice views communication as an act of reasoning. Audiences are able to make rational decisions by observing the speaker's intentions.
Know more about the word intimate. Intimidate शब्द के हिंदी अर्थ का उदाहरण: It is written as bhaybhīt karnā in roman hindi.
Department Of Defense) (Dod) के रूप में आतंकवाद को परिभाषित:
Hindustani is the native language of people living in delhi, haryana, uttar. Along with the hindi meaning of intimidate, multiple definitions are also stated to provide a complete meaning of. In·tim·i·dat·ed , in·tim·i·dat·ing , in·tim·i·dates 1.
Intimidate Meaning In Hindi With Examples:
How to use intimidate in a sentence. Intimidate शब्द के हिंदी अर्थ का उदाहरण: Find the definition of intimate in hindi.
Intimate Meaning In Hindi :
Get meaning and translation of intimidate in hindi language with grammar,antonyms,synonyms and sentence usages by shabdkhoj. Hindi, or more precisely modern standard hindi, is a standardised and sanskritised register of the hindustani language. Intimidate meaning in hindi :
Intimidate Is A Verb (Used With Object), Intimidated, Intimidating By Form.
It is written as bhaybhīt karnā in roman hindi. Looking for the meaning of intimidate in hindi? Find hindi meaning of intimidate.
Intimidate Meaning In Hindi Is भयभीत करना.
Get the meaning of intimidate in hindi with usage, synonyms, antonyms & pronunciation. Definitions and meaning of intimidated in hindi, translation of intimidated in hindi language with similar and opposite words. Sentence usage examples & english to hindi translation (word meaning).
Post a Comment for "Intimidate Meaning In Hindi"