Mandatory Meaning In Hindi
Mandatory Meaning In Hindi. Mandatory meaning in hindi is वह जिसे आज्ञापत्र दिया जाय and it can write in roman. Hindi, or more precisely modern standard hindi, is a standardised and sanskritised register of the hindustani language.
The relationship between a symbol and the meaning of its sign is called the theory of meaning. For this piece, we will look at the difficulties with truth-conditional theories on meaning, Grice's understanding of meanings given by the speaker, as well as an analysis of the meaning of a sign by Tarski's semantic model of truth. Also, we will look at some arguments against Tarski's theory regarding truth.
Arguments against truth-conditional theories of meaning
Truth-conditional theories for meaning say that meaning is a function in the conditions that define truth. However, this theory limits meaning to the phenomena of language. It is Davidson's main argument that truth-values might not be valid. So, it is essential to be able to discern between truth values and a plain claim.
The Epistemic Determination Argument is a way in support of truth-conditional theories of meaning. It is based upon two basic assumptions: omniscience of nonlinguistic facts and knowledge of the truth-condition. But Daniel Cohnitz has argued against these assumptions. Thus, the argument does not have any merit.
Another concern that people have with these theories is that they are not able to prove the validity of the concept of. However, this problem is solved by mentalist analysis. This way, meaning is evaluated in words of a mental representation, instead of the meaning intended. For instance, a person can get different meanings from the words when the person uses the same term in 2 different situations but the meanings behind those words may be identical when the speaker uses the same word in two different contexts.
While most foundational theories of meaning try to explain the how meaning is constructed in the terms of content in mentality, other theories are sometimes explored. This could be due doubts about mentalist concepts. They also may be pursued in the minds of those who think mental representation should be considered in terms of linguistic representation.
Another prominent defender of this view I would like to mention Robert Brandom. This philosopher believes that meaning of a sentence is dependent on its social and cultural context and that the speech actions in relation to a sentence are appropriate in what context in where they're being used. So, he's developed a pragmatics concept to explain sentence meanings based on rules of engagement and normative status.
Problems with Grice's analysis of speaker-meaning
Grice's analysis that analyzes speaker-meaning puts much emphasis on the utterer's intention and the relationship to the meaning in the sentences. Grice argues that intention is a complex mental condition which must be considered in order to discern the meaning of a sentence. However, this theory violates the concept of speaker centrism when it examines U-meaning without M-intentions. In addition, Grice fails to account for the possibility that M-intentions do not have to be strictly limited to one or two.
In addition, Grice's model doesn't account for important cases of intuitional communication. For example, in the photograph example from earlier, the speaker isn't clear as to whether the subject was Bob or his wife. This is problematic because Andy's photo doesn't specify whether Bob or even his wife is unfaithful or faithful.
While Grice is right that speaker-meaning has more significance than sentence-meanings, there is still room for debate. Actually, the distinction is vital for an understanding of the naturalistic validity of the non-natural meaning. In reality, the aim of Grice is to give naturalistic explanations to explain this type of meaning.
To understand the meaning behind a communication we must be aware of what the speaker is trying to convey, and that's an intricate embedding of intents and beliefs. However, we seldom make deep inferences about mental state in ordinary communicative exchanges. Consequently, Grice's analysis of speaker-meaning is not compatible with the real psychological processes that are involved in language understanding.
While Grice's model of speaker-meaning is a plausible explanation about the processing, it's yet far from being completely accurate. Others, including Bennett, Loar, and Schiffer, have created deeper explanations. These explanations tend to diminish the credibility on the Gricean theory, because they view communication as something that's rational. It is true that people be convinced that the speaker's message is true as they can discern the speaker's intent.
Additionally, it does not consider all forms of speech acts. Grice's method of analysis does not acknowledge the fact that speech acts are typically used to explain the significance of a sentence. This means that the value of a phrase is reduced to the meaning of the speaker.
Problems with Tarski's semantic theories of truth
While Tarski posited that sentences are truth-bearing But this doesn't imply that a sentence must always be truthful. Instead, he attempted define what is "true" in a specific context. His theory has since become the basis of modern logic and is classified as a deflationary theory or correspondence theory.
One issue with the doctrine on truth lies in the fact it can't be applied to any natural language. This is due to Tarski's undefinability theory, which claims that no bivalent one has the ability to contain its own truth predicate. Even though English may seem to be one exception to this law but this is in no way inconsistent with Tarski's stance that natural languages are closed semantically.
But, Tarski leaves many implicit limitations on his theory. For example, a theory must not include false sentences or instances of form T. In other words, theories should avoid that Liar paradox. Another drawback with Tarski's theory is that it's not in line with the work of traditional philosophers. Additionally, it's not able to explain each and every case of truth in terms of normal sense. This is a huge problem for any theory that claims to be truthful.
The other issue is that Tarski's definition is based on notions that come from set theory and syntax. These aren't suitable when looking at endless languages. The style of language used by Henkin is well established, however it doesn't support Tarski's theory of truth.
His definition of Truth is difficult to comprehend because it doesn't recognize the complexity the truth. Truth, for instance, cannot serve as an axiom in an interpretation theory and Tarski's definition of truth cannot explain the semantics of primitives. Further, his definition on truth isn't in accordance with the concept of truth in understanding theories.
However, these issues don't stop Tarski from using their definition of truth, and it doesn't conform to the definition of'satisfaction. In fact, the exact definition of truth isn't so straight-forward and is determined by the specifics of object-language. If your interest is to learn more about the subject, then read Thoralf Skolem's 1919 essay.
The problems with Grice's approach to sentence-meaning
The issues with Grice's method of analysis of the meaning of sentences can be summarized in two key elements. In the first place, the intention of the speaker should be recognized. The speaker's words must be supported by evidence demonstrating the desired effect. However, these requirements aren't fully met in every instance.
This issue can be resolved with the modification of Grice's method of analyzing meanings of sentences in order to take into account the significance of sentences that are not based on intention. This analysis is also based on the idea which sentences are complex and are composed of several elements. So, the Gricean analysis does not capture instances that could be counterexamples.
The criticism is particularly troubling when you consider Grice's distinction between meaning of the speaker and sentence. This distinction is crucial to any plausible naturalist account of sentence-meaning. This theory is also essential to the notion of conversational implicature. As early as 1957 Grice offered a fundamental theory on meaning, which was elaborated in subsequent writings. The fundamental concept of the concept of meaning in Grice's work is to think about the speaker's intentions in determining what the speaker intends to convey.
Another issue with Grice's analysis is that it does not reflect on intuitive communication. For instance, in Grice's example, it's not clear what Andy means by saying that Bob is unfaithful to his wife. However, there are a lot of instances of intuitive communication that do not fit into Grice's argument.
The main claim of Grice's theory is that the speaker is required to intend to cause an effect in viewers. But this claim is not strictly based on philosophical principles. Grice determines the cutoff point according to variable cognitive capabilities of an partner and on the nature of communication.
Grice's sentence-meaning analysis is not very plausible, even though it's a plausible theory. Different researchers have produced deeper explanations of significance, but these are less plausible. Furthermore, Grice views communication as an act of rationality. Audiences form their opinions by being aware of the message being communicated by the speaker.
Mandatory ka matalab hindi me kya hai. Wearing a helmet is a mandatory rule set by the international triathlon union.: Looking for the meaning of mandatory in hindi?.
Looking For The Meaning Of Mandatory In Hindi?.
इस लेख में अंग्रेजी शब्द ‘mandatory’ का मतलब आसान हिंदी में उदाहरण (example) सहित दिया गया है और साथ में दिए गए है इसके समानार्थी. The synonyms and antonyms of mandatory are listed below. To do something that is required by.
Get Meaning And Translation Of Compulsory In Hindi Language With Grammar,Antonyms,Synonyms And Sentence Usages By Shabdkhoj.
What is meaning of mandatory in hindi dictionary? Mandatory meaning in hindi is वह जिसे आज्ञापत्र दिया जाय and it can write in roman. वकील मुख़्तार अनिवार्य आज्ञापक वह जिसको.
Mandatory Meaning In Hindi With Examples:
Mandatory is a adjective by form. It is written as anivārya in roman hindi. Find all of the relevant hindi meanings of mandatory below.
See Mandatory Meaning In Hindi, Mandatory Definition, Translation And Meaning Of Mandatory In Hindi.
Find mandatory similar words, mandatory synonyms. (mandatory meaning in hindi) mandatory शब्द का अर्थ है जिसके बिना काम ना चल सके अत्यंत जरूरी, आवश्यक कोई चीज या अपेक्षित चीजें जो अत्यंत आवश्यक हो और ऐसी. If any action or process is legally or prescriptively obliged to do, this compulsive verb is called ‘mandatory’.
Compulsory Meaning In Hindi :
कुछ अनिवार्य एक शासनादेश या आदेश का परिणाम या रूप है, जो आमतौर पर एक कानून, नियम, या विनियमन के रूप में आता है. Hindi, or more precisely modern standard hindi, is a standardised and sanskritised register of the hindustani language. Website for synonyms, antonyms, verb conjugations and translations.
Post a Comment for "Mandatory Meaning In Hindi"