Tourism in a Semantic Mirror: Retheorizing Tourism from the Linguistic Turn

Although scholars have sought to theorize tourism from important philosophical turns (e.g., epistemological/antirational/postmodern/practice), one influential turn (viz. linguistic) has not received much attention. This study attempts to fill this gap by retheorizing tourism from the linguistic turn. We introduced major theories of meaning (a core part of the linguistic turn) from the philosophy literature, on the basis of which we constructed a new semantic space of “tourism” where multiple semantic dimensions (defined by particular types of meaning theories) coexist and possess different semantic veins (determined by a subtheory of meaning) consisting of numerous semantic dots (i.e., actual understandings of tourism). This prescriptive space captures the image of tourism in a semantic mirror, encompassing tourism ontologies in a semantic/linguistic realm. This space also offers solutions to four problems in prior tourism theorization. By innovatively linking tourism and philosophy of language, this study has expanded the options in addressing the question “What is tourism?”

Ogden and Richards Proposed Theories: A Brief Overlook as a Prominent Reference for the Current Studies

The purpose of this article is to find out whether the Ogden and Richard theories are still worthy of being a reference for the current situation. This study intended to review the theories that are highly popular in the semantic environment. Ogden and Richard's theory is one of the most popular semantic theories in linguistics. This theory is a very simple theory related to thought/reference, symbol and referent. Besides, this theory is often referred to as a triangle of meaning and a semiotic triangle. Many researchers try to review the Ogden and Richard theory (Theory Triangle) based on the understanding and perspective of the researchers. This study described and compared the similarity and difference between five (5) studies on the triangle of meaning proposed by Ogden and Richard (1923) this study the analysis and employed a comparative study as a qualitative study in nature. This study explored five (5) articles e.g...“Ogden and Richards‟ The Meaning of Meaning and early analytic philosophy, Semantic Triangle and Linguistic Sign, Controversies and Misunderstandings about Meaning: On the reception of Ogden and Richards book, (The Meaning of Meaning), Theories of Semantics; Merits and Limitations, Research on Translation Based on Semantic Triangle Theory”. This study sees that the theory of from Ogden and Richards is still worthy of being a reference until now. The studies being used as lens seems giving their positive credits to their study. This means that Ogden and Richards somehow acknowledged being as a prominent study in their field until now.

Ogden and Richards Proposed Theories: A Brief Overlook as a Prominent Reference for the Current Studies

The purpose of this article is to find out whether the Ogden and Richard theories are still worthy of being a reference for the current situation. This study intended to review the theories that are highly popular in the semantic environment. Ogden and Richard's theory is one of the most popular semantic theories in linguistics. This theory is a very simple theory related to thought/reference, symbol and referent. Besides, this theory is often referred to as a triangle of meaning and a semiotic triangle. Many researchers try to review the Ogden and Richard theory (Theory Triangle) based on the understanding and perspective of the researchers. This study described and compared the similarity and difference between five (5) studies on the triangle of meaning proposed by Ogden and Richard (1923) this study the analysis and employed a comparative study as a qualitative study in nature. This study explored five (5) articles e.g...“Ogden and Richards’ The Meaning of Meaning and early analytic philosophy, Semantic Triangle and Linguistic Sign, Controversies and Misunderstandings about Meaning: On the reception of Ogden and Richards book, (The Meaning of Meaning), Theories of Semantics; Merits and Limitations, Research on Translation Based on Semantic Triangle Theory”. This study sees that the theory of from Ogden and Richards is still worthy of being a reference until now. The studies being used as lens seems giving their positive credits to their study. This means that Ogden and Richards somehow acknowledged being as a prominent study in their field until now.

Introduction

The editors situate the rise of transatlantic television drama within the history of transnational cultural exchange, theories of transnationalism, and scholarship on the topic within the field of media studies. They argue that broadcasting is uniquely entangled with tensions over national culture and identity to which scholars have responded with three distinct “waves” of thought. The first wave centered on fears of “Americanization,” the second focused on the “globalization” of culture via international trade, while the third has shifted to a transnational approach that is concerned with complex flows of influence and meaning. Theories of transnationalism put forward by Arjun Appadurai, Mette Hjort, Ien Ang, and others are brought to bear on considerations of international industries, texts, and fandom today, with particular attention to the transatlantic sphere. Finally, the key themes of transnational coproduction, new transnational relationships, and transnational representations are traced across and between the volume’s three parts.

On the condition of urban and architectural design

Postmodern architecture, across the 1960 and 1970 decades, was concerned to semiotic and meaning theories, including the existential and phenomenological philosophy. Build space’s perceptual experiences took relevance under new space-thinking view, shared by another same matter researching disciplines in a phenomenological frame, but constructivist, poststructuralist, and deconstructivist too, which drives the stream of architectonic and urban design forward to today. The importance of a revision and critique of key concepts such as identity or urban imaginaries, which refer to the point of view of the city's actors, is raised as an indispensable factor in understanding the "complex nature of design". The result is a change of theories and concepts to understand both the complex reality faced by design and one of its levels of reality: the significant dimension of urban actions, interactions, and imaginaries.

Interactional Stancetaking in Online Forums

Language is shaped by the relationships between the speaker/writer and the audience, the object of discussion, and the talk itself. In turn, language is used to reshape these relationships over the course of an interaction. Computational researchers have succeeded in operationalizing sentiment, formality, and politeness, but each of these constructs captures only some aspects of social and relational meaning. Theories of interactional stancetaking have been put forward as holistic accounts, but until now, these theories have been applied only through detailed qualitative analysis of (portions of) a few individual conversations. In this article, we propose a new computational operationalization of interpersonal stancetaking. We begin with annotations of three linked stance dimensions—affect, investment, and alignment—on 68 conversation threads from the online platform Reddit. Using these annotations, we investigate thread structure and linguistic properties of stancetaking in online conversations. We identify lexical features that characterize the extremes along each stancetaking dimension, and show that these stancetaking properties can be predicted with moderate accuracy from bag-of-words features, even with a relatively small labeled training set. These quantitative analyses are supplemented by extensive qualitative analysis, highlighting the compatibility of computational and qualitative methods in synthesizing evidence about the creation of interactional meaning.

Webs of meaning: Theories and evidence from contemporary Ireland

Meaning is basic to social life. Without it we are, as Bourdieu put it, like fish out water. And yet, within mainstream sociology, meaning is taken for granted. There are two questions. Is it important to try and get at meaning? And, if yes, how do we do so? In this article, I argue that we have progressed much theoretically from the debate that took place between Schutz and Parsons back in the 1960s. It is as if meaning and structures are opposite sides of the same coin but we either look at one side or the other: we cannot address them simultaneously. However, I argue that to do good sociology, it is necessary to try to marry what is going on in the actor with the way in which the actor is constituted within social structures. Given that we can only develop an approximate understanding of any actor and that we can only develop an approximate understanding of social structures, any attempt to link the two is necessarily tentative but, nevertheless, worthwhile.

Truth or understanding

This chapter and the next argue against the idea that children acquire languages whose sentences have compositionally determined truth conditions. The chapter begins by discussing Davidson’s bold conjecture: the languages that children naturally acquire support Tarski-style theories of truth, which can serve as the core components of meaning theories for the languages in question. The argument is that even if there are plausible theories of truth for these languages, formulating them as plausible theories of meaning requires assumptions about truth that are extremely implausible. Sentences like ‘My favorite sentence is not true’, which happens to be my favorite sentence, illustrate this point. But the point is not merely that “Liar Sentences” are troublesome, it is that theories of truth and theories of meaning have different subject matters.