Talk:Denotation

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophy of language

Linguistics: Theoretical Linguistics / Philosophy of language High‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 October 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Printy13. Peer reviewers: Alabaw25, Emma Adriana.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Denotation!

Hi,

If anyone has any problems or queries about Denotation, please feel free to add a message here!

My problem is that it's not as awesome as detonation. --Lenoxus 01:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know where to start, this page is simply awful. For instance, in the wildly unhelpful picture section, why doesn't the brown cross image denote a representation of a brown cross like the example of the heart? There is no sensible reason why there would be a difference. And what the heck does the sentence 'In logic and semantics, denotational always attracts the extension meaning "in the pair", but the other element genuinely varies' mean? I think I am being charitable by even calling it a sentence. Since I came to the page looking for information on the contrast between denotation and reference I can't help give you a better understanding of them, but this page needs to be put under review or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.117.209 (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have seen how Tarsky represents denotation. 69.84.246.38 (talk) 21:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

I love how old this article is, how important it is, and how nobody has fixed it. It's hilarious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.16.162 (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Canaan Natahmabit Atkinson (talk) 06:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

denotation is not referent

Seems to me the article lets believe that denotation is just another funny term for referent... The opposite of referent is meaning, in the plain, ordinary... sense of the term, of which denotation should be some part or dimension. I guess on my part that denotation and its opposite connotation are but artifacts of attempts to define meanings conceptually, as in modern dictionaries: the denotation is what lets itself define, the connotation being all the rest... denis 'spir' (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non donor

Problem people hacking me even though I have a family doctor for years Canaan Natahmabit Atkinson (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

Hello!

I added another source to the references section:

Trask, R. L. (2007). Language and linguistics: the key concepts. Peter Stockwell (Second edition ed.). Abingdon [England]. ISBN 978-0-415-41358-9. OCLC 75087994.

If anyone has any suggestions to improve the bibliography, please let me know. Printy13 (talk) 17:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Draft

Hello everyone,

Right now I'm in the process of merging my draft edits (see this page) onto the live article. If you have any questions or suggestions, please let me know!

Printy13 (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted Semiotics Section

Hello, I deleted the "In semiotics" section because none of the content was supported by sources. Printy13 (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Denotation" in philosophy versus "denotation" in linguistics

Contrary to the first sentence of this article, "denotation" has different meanings in philosophy and in linguistics. In philosophy, following John Stuart Mill, it means the thing denoted by a term. It's contrasted with "connotation", which means something like the condition a thing must satisfy to count as the term's denotation. By contrast, in linguistics, "denotation" is closer to "connotation" in philosophy, whereas "connotation" refers to associations of the sort described in the article. H Remster (talk) 09:28, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]