Talk:Meaning (semiotics)

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy: Language High‑importance 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: Philosophy of language 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

Jon Awbrey 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction to this article is almost completely incomprehensible to me. Also, I am not sure that I see the value of subject headers that simply refer to other articles. I would like to see someone bring order to the topics of connotation/denotation rather than create a network of mutually referential (and probably redundant) articles. Bob 01:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• JA: I am presently working on a full exposition of these matters under the Sign relation banner and will adapt briefer versions of the pertinent concepts for this particular context. Give it a few days, maybe. I recognize that there is some de-wrinkling to do with all the different approaches that have tackled the subject of meaning over the centuries, but Rome was not built in a day, as they say. Jon Awbrey 04:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link...-->      --Faustnh (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]