La Linguistique, La Sémantique et La Pragmatique

Year 2014, Volume: 11 Issue: 1, 45 - 64, 15.09.2014

Ayşe Eziler Kıran

Abstract

This article tries to explain the forming and understanding of meaning as regards to meaning, semantics, linguistics and pragmatics. The terms of meaning and signification have been explained with the enunciation and utterance concepts within the Benveniste’s theory of enunciation. Starting off with the example “proje”/“proce”, the definition of the sign from the signifier and the signified by Saussure and the concept of the four-level sign by Hjelmslev have been compared. The dichotomy “proje”/“proce” have 

been analyzed at the phonetics, phonology, lexicology, morphology, and semantics levels. Therefore, we have observed how a phonetic change in context and use at the phonology level can change the other two levels and the meaning. Based on Aksan’s ideas, we have determined how a meaningful sign (proje) in a standard language can change into a sound series (proce) meaningful with phonetic association but not existing in dictionaries. The word “proje” having a neutral meaning gained a dysphoric meaning in the expression “crazy project”. Here the influence of the connotation’s power and content has been put forward. Like in this example, connotation can be so powerful that it can shelter denotation. Nevertheless, there cannot be connotation without denotation. In the framework of semantics, we have tried to explain the dichotomy principle of Saussure and the axis of resemblance/difference with the examples “kahve (tr.) /kafe” (fr.). We have stressed that before pragmatics inspired by Wittgenstein, Greimas put forward that the meaning (signification) is formed and understood within context. In the implicit explained by pragmatics, we have shown that signification can be formed regardless of the words used in the utterance but that the meaning can never come forward without them.
Keywords: Semantics, pragmatics, enunciation, utterance, signification, denotation, connotation

Keywords

Anlambilim, edimbilim, sözceleme, sözce, anlamlandırma, düzanlam, yananlam

References

• Akay, S. (2011). Çılgın proce. http://www.vatanbir.org/yazi/117/cilgin-proce (14 juillet 2011).
• Aksan, D. (1998). Anlambilim, Anlambilimin Konuları ve Türkçenin Anlambilimi (La sémantique. Les champs de la sémantique et la sémantique de la langue turque). Ankara: Engin.
• Anscombre, J. C. et Ducrot, O. (1983). Largumentation dans la langue. Liège: Mardaga.
• Baylon, C. et Fabre, P. (1978). La Sémantique. Paris: Nathan.
• Baylon, C. et Mignot, X. (1995). Sémantique du langage. Initiation. Paris: Nathan. Benveniste, E. (1976). Problèmes de linguistique générale, t. I, Paris: Gallimard. de Saussure, F. (1976). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.
• Garric, N. et Callas, F. (2007). Introduction à la pragmatique. Paris: Hachette.
• Greimas, A. J. (1966). La sémantique structurale. Paris : Larousse.
• Greimas, A. J. et Courtés, J. (1979). Sémiotique. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Paris: Hachette.
• Hjelmslev, L. (1971). Essais linguistiques. Paris: Minuit.
• Kıran, Z. et Eziler Kıran, A. (2013). Dilbilime Giriş (Introduction à la linguistique (4ème éd). Ankara: Seçkin.
• Nyckees, V. (1998). La sémantique. Paris: Belin.
• Saucet, M. (1996). La sémantique générale aujourd’hui, Paris: Courrier du livre.
• Tesnière, L. (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
• Tutescu, M. (1979). Précis de la sémantique française. Paris: Klincksieck.
• Yücel, T. (1969). L’imaginaire de Bernanos. Istanbul: Edebiyat Fakültesi Basımevi. qui concerne l 13 es sciences du langage, il est toujours incontournable.