Consequences Meaning In Hindi
Consequences Meaning In Hindi. ‘consequences’ is an effect caused by something. आज के इस आर्टिकल में मै आपको “ कान्सक्वन्स का मतलब.
The relationship between a symbol and its meaning is known as"the theory that explains meaning.. We will discuss this in the following article. we'll explore the challenges with truth-conditional theories of meaning, Grice's examination of meanings given by the speaker, as well as Sarski's theory of semantic truth. The article will also explore evidence against Tarski's theories of truth.
Arguments against truth-conditional theories of significance
Truth-conditional theories regarding meaning claim that meaning is a function of the conditions that determine truth. This theory, however, limits its meaning to the phenomenon of language. The argument of Davidson essentially states that truth-values aren't always correct. We must therefore be able to discern between truth-values as opposed to a flat statement.
It is the Epistemic Determination Argument is an attempt to establish truth-conditional theories for meaning. It is based on two basic assumptions: omniscience of nonlinguistic facts and the knowing the truth-condition. However, Daniel Cohnitz has argued against these assumptions. This argument therefore does not have any merit.
Another major concern associated with these theories is the lack of a sense of meaning. This issue can be addressed through mentalist analysis. In this way, the meaning is examined in regards to a representation of the mental instead of the meaning intended. For instance, a person can see different meanings for the term when the same person uses the same term in various contexts, but the meanings behind those words may be identical even if the person is using the same word in several different settings.
Although the majority of theories of interpretation attempt to explain the nature of significance in ways that are based on mental contents, other theories are sometimes pursued. This could be due skepticism of mentalist theories. They may also be pursued for those who hold that mental representation should be analysed in terms of linguistic representation.
A key defender of this idea one of them is Robert Brandom. He is a philosopher who believes that purpose of a statement is dependent on its social context as well as that speech actions with a sentence make sense in what context in which they're utilized. Thus, he has developed an argumentation theory of pragmatics that can explain sentence meanings based on rules of engagement and normative status.
A few issues with Grice's understanding of speaker-meaning
Grice's analysis to understand speaker-meaning places large emphasis on the speaker's intent and their relationship to the significance to the meaning of the sentence. He asserts that intention can be something that is a complicated mental state that needs to be considered in order to determine the meaning of an expression. However, this approach violates speaker centrism by studying U-meaning without M-intentions. Furthermore, Grice fails to account for the possibility that M-intentions aren't limitless to one or two.
The analysis also does not consider some important cases of intuitive communication. For example, in the photograph example in the previous paragraph, the speaker does not make clear if his message is directed to Bob or wife. This is problematic since Andy's photograph doesn't indicate whether Bob or wife is unfaithful , or faithful.
While Grice is right that speaker-meaning is more important than sentence-meaning, there is still room for debate. In reality, the difference is essential to the naturalistic credibility of non-natural meaning. Grice's objective is to present naturalistic explanations that explain such a non-natural significance.
To understand the meaning behind a communication we must first understand an individual's motives, and this intention is an intricate embedding of intents and beliefs. We rarely draw intricate inferences about mental states in everyday conversations. Therefore, Grice's interpretation of speaker-meaning isn't compatible to the actual psychological processes involved in learning to speak.
Although Grice's explanation of speaker-meaning is a plausible description how the system works, it's insufficient. Others, like Bennett, Loar, and Schiffer, have created more in-depth explanations. These explanations, however, are likely to undermine the validity for the Gricean theory, since they see communication as something that's rational. The basic idea is that audiences think that the speaker's intentions are valid because they understand that the speaker's message is clear.
In addition, it fails to make a case for all kinds of speech act. Grice's analysis also fails to acknowledge the fact that speech acts are frequently used to explain the meaning of sentences. In the end, the content of a statement is limited to its meaning by its speaker.
The semantic theory of Tarski's is not working. of truth
While Tarski believes that sentences are truth-bearing however, this doesn't mean every sentence has to be true. Instead, he aimed to define what is "true" in a specific context. His theory has since become an integral part of modern logic and is classified as a correspondence or deflationary.
One drawback with the theory to be true is that the concept cannot be applied to natural languages. This problem is caused by Tarski's undefinability theorem. It says that no bivalent language can contain its own truth predicate. While English might appear to be an in the middle of this principle However, this isn't in conflict with Tarski's notion that natural languages are semantically closed.
But, Tarski leaves many implicit conditions on his theory. For instance the theory should not include false sentences or instances of the form T. This means that theories must not be able to avoid being a victim of the Liar paradox. Another issue with Tarski's idea is that it's not as logical as the work of traditional philosophers. In addition, it's impossible to explain all instances of truth in an ordinary sense. This is a major problem for any theory of truth.
Another issue is the fact that Tarski's definition of truth is based on notions of set theory and syntax. These aren't appropriate when looking at endless languages. The style of language used by Henkin is well founded, but it doesn't match Tarski's idea of the truth.
In Tarski's view, the definition of truth challenging because it fails to recognize the complexity the truth. For instance, truth cannot be an axiom in an interpretation theory the axioms of Tarski's theory cannot describe the semantics of primitives. Furthermore, his definition of truth is not compatible with the notion of truth in sense theories.
However, these issues don't stop Tarski from applying an understanding of truth that he has developed, and it doesn't have to be classified as a satisfaction definition. In actual fact, the concept of truth is more than simple and is dependent on the particularities of object languages. If you're interested in knowing more about the subject, then read Thoralf Skolem's 1919 paper.
Issues with Grice's analysis of sentence-meaning
The issues with Grice's method of analysis of sentence meaning can be summarized in two main points. One, the intent of the speaker must be understood. The speaker's words must be accompanied by evidence that supports the intended effect. However, these requirements aren't fulfilled in every case.
This issue can be resolved through changing Grice's theory of sentence-meaning to include the significance of sentences that are not based on intentionality. The analysis is based upon the idea which sentences are complex entities that contain a variety of fundamental elements. As such, the Gricean approach isn't able capture contradictory examples.
This argument is especially problematic when considering Grice's distinctions between speaker-meaning and sentence-meaning. This distinction is essential to any account that is naturalistically accurate of sentence-meaning. This is also essential in the theory of conversational implicature. As early as 1957 Grice introduced a fundamental concept of meaning that was further developed in later documents. The fundamental concept of the concept of meaning in Grice's research is to focus on the speaker's intent in understanding what the speaker wants to convey.
Another issue in Grice's argument is that it fails to examine the impact of intuitive communication. For instance, in Grice's example, it's not clear what Andy really means when he asserts that Bob is not faithful for his wife. However, there are a lot of examples of intuition-based communication that do not fit into Grice's study.
The main argument of Grice's analysis requires that the speaker has to be intending to create an effect in your audience. But this isn't an intellectually rigorous one. Grice sets the cutoff upon the basis of the contingent cognitive capabilities of the interlocutor as well as the nature of communication.
Grice's analysis of sentence-meaning isn't very convincing, although it's a plausible explanation. Different researchers have produced deeper explanations of meaning, but they are less plausible. Furthermore, Grice views communication as an act of reason. Audiences reason to their beliefs by understanding an individual's intention.
If you use consequence as singular , it can be translated into hindi as follows : Over 100,000 hindi translations of english words and phrases. Consequence is a noun according to parts of speech.
Consequence Meaning In Hindi :
Consequences is an english word that is translated in hindi and carries a lot more information on this page. Consequence is a noun according to parts of speech. इस लेख में अंग्रेजी शब्द ‘consequences’ का मतलब आसान हिंदी में उदाहरण (example) सहित दिया गया है और साथ में दिए गए है इसके.
Website For Synonyms, Antonyms, Verb Conjugations And Translations.
It is written as vikretā in roman. What is the meaning of consequences in hindi? If you use consequence as singular , it can be translated into hindi as follows :
Explore Urdupoint Dictionary To Find Out More Meanings, Definitions, Synonyms And Antonyms Of The Word.
Click for more detailed meaning of legal consequences in hindi with examples, definition, pronunciation and example. Get meaning and translation of consequence in hindi language with grammar,antonyms,synonyms and sentence usages by shabdkhoj. What do we mean by the consequences in english.
‘Consequences’ Means The Result Of An Act Done.
इसलिए नतीजा निष्कर्ष पद पदवी परिणाम प्रभ. Consequences meaning in hindi is jo hogā dekhā jāegā जो होगा देखा जाएगा!. Learn meaning of english word consequences in hindi and urdu.
Something Or Someone Of Consequence Is Important Or Valuable.
Consequence meaning in hindi with examples: Consequences meaning in hindi | consequences का हिंदी में अर्थ | explained consequences in hindiइस वीडियो में आप consequences का. Its plural form consequences is.
Post a Comment for "Consequences Meaning In Hindi"