Rather, when we understand what the

Rather, when we understand what the producer of a malapropism means, we rely on our knowledge of the same semantic conventions that enable us to understand any sentence. Consider how my friend, the English teacher, probably discemed what the student meant. She noted that it is unkely that a student would accuse her of pederasty. Next, she recalled that pederasty" sounds quite like "pedantry' and decided that the student had confounded the two words. In order to figure out what the student meant my friend did not need to posit a new semantic convention, according to which pederast means pedant. She simply proceeded on the assumption that the student meant to say 'Pedant' and interpreted his utterance using the convention which states that pedant means pedants. 'Pederast' and pedant have only their usual meanings.
Reflection on malapropisms does not support the view that, in works of literature, sentences have non-literal meanings. If sentences in literature have secondary meanings, it must be possible for readers to grasp these meanings. Moreover, speakers must be able to grasp these meanings using their knowledge of existing semantic conventions, as my friend did when she grasped what the student meant. Unfortunately, this cannot be done. "Pederasty resembles pedantry and the student plainly did not mean that my friend is a pederast. This tipped her off to the semantic conventions which reveal the additional meaning of the student's malapropism. Nothing about sentences works of literature. Similarly tips off readers to the semantic conventions they need to employ in grasping non-literal meanings. The sentences in works of Bterature are false, butnreaders expect them to be false. Readers understand perfectly well the convention of telling stories composed of false sentences. The fact that sentences are obviously false does not set readers off on a quest to find additional meanings. These sentences typically do not resemble other sentences. Taken in their literal senses, they are perfectly appropriate in their contexts. Readers bave no for using any semantic conventions but the obvious ones when they grasp the meanings of sentences in literature. Suppose, for example, readers come across the sentence, A hungry fox tried to reach clusters of grapes which he saw hanging from a vine trained on a tree, but they were too high. Readers grasp the meaning of this sentence using conventions that specify that 'fox' means foxes, grapes means grapes, and so on. In general, only ordinary semantic conventions are employed in grasping the meanings of sentences works of literature,
Irony is another phenomenon which might seem to support the view that sentences in literary works have an additional meaning. Ironical statements do have meanings besides their literal meanings. Imagine that I find in my mailbox another idiotic memo from the Academic Vice-President. (Perhaps my department is directed to teach its course on Hume with an Asia-Pacific focus). "That is just wonderful',I exclaim. My statement literally means that the memo is wonderful, obviously, my words are meant ironically. They also mean, roughly that the memo is not wonderful. It might be thought that, like ironical statements

Results (Indonesian) 1:

Sebaliknya, ketika kita mengerti apa yang produsen malapropism berarti, kami bergantung pada pengetahuan semantik Konvensi sama yang memungkinkan kita untuk memahami setiap kalimat. Pertimbangkan bagaimana teman saya, guru bahasa Inggris, mungkin discemed siswa apa dimaksudkan. Dia mencatat bahwa itu adalah unkely bahwa siswa akan menuduh dia Perjantanan. Selanjutnya, dia ingat bahwa Perjantanan"terdengar cukup seperti" pedantry' dan memutuskan bahwa siswa telah bingung dua kata. Untuk mengetahui apa yang siswa dimaksud teman saya tidak perlu menempatkan semantik Konvensi baru, menurut homo yang berarti pedant. Ia hanya mulai pada asumsi bahwa siswa bermaksud mengatakan 'Pedant' dan ditafsirkan ucapan nya menggunakan konvensi yang menyatakan bahwa pedant berarti ilmuwan. 'Homo' dan pedant memiliki hanya makna mereka biasa.Reflection on malapropisms does not support the view that, in works of literature, sentences have non-literal meanings. If sentences in literature have secondary meanings, it must be possible for readers to grasp these meanings. Moreover, speakers must be able to grasp these meanings using their knowledge of existing semantic conventions, as my friend did when she grasped what the student meant. Unfortunately, this cannot be done. "Pederasty resembles pedantry and the student plainly did not mean that my friend is a pederast. This tipped her off to the semantic conventions which reveal the additional meaning of the student's malapropism. Nothing about sentences works of literature. Similarly tips off readers to the semantic conventions they need to employ in grasping non-literal meanings. The sentences in works of Bterature are false, butnreaders expect them to be false. Readers understand perfectly well the convention of telling stories composed of false sentences. The fact that sentences are obviously false does not set readers off on a quest to find additional meanings. These sentences typically do not resemble other sentences. Taken in their literal senses, they are perfectly appropriate in their contexts. Readers bave no for using any semantic conventions but the obvious ones when they grasp the meanings of sentences in literature. Suppose, for example, readers come across the sentence, A hungry fox tried to reach clusters of grapes which he saw hanging from a vine trained on a tree, but they were too high. Readers grasp the meaning of this sentence using conventions that specify that 'fox' means foxes, grapes means grapes, and so on. In general, only ordinary semantic conventions are employed in grasping the meanings of sentences works of literature,Irony is another phenomenon which might seem to support the view that sentences in literary works have an additional meaning. Ironical statements do have meanings besides their literal meanings. Imagine that I find in my mailbox another idiotic memo from the Academic Vice-President. (Perhaps my department is directed to teach its course on Hume with an Asia-Pacific focus). "That is just wonderful',I exclaim. My statement literally means that the memo is wonderful, obviously, my words are meant ironically. They also mean, roughly that the memo is not wonderful. It might be thought that, like ironical statements

Results (Indonesian) 2:

Sebaliknya, ketika kita memahami apa produser malapropism berarti, kita bergantung pada pengetahuan kita tentang konvensi semantik yang sama yang memungkinkan kita untuk memahami kalimat apapun. Mempertimbangkan bagaimana teman saya, guru bahasa Inggris, mungkin discemed apa yang siswa dimaksud. Dia mencatat bahwa itu adalah unkely bahwa seorang siswa akan menuduhnya perjantanan. Selanjutnya, dia ingat bahwa perjantanan "terdengar cukup seperti" pengetahuan yg 'dan memutuskan bahwa siswa telah dikacaukan dua kata. Dalam rangka untuk mencari tahu apa yang siswa berarti teman saya tidak perlu mengandaikan konvensi semantik baru, yang menurut pederast berarti pedant. Dia hanya melanjutkan pada asumsi bahwa siswa dimaksudkan untuk mengatakan 'pedant' dan ditafsirkan ucapan nya menggunakan konvensi yang menyatakan bahwa pedant berarti pedants. 'Pederast' dan pedant hanya memiliki makna yang biasa mereka.
Refleksi malapropisms tidak mendukung pandangan bahwa, dalam karya sastra, kalimat memiliki makna non-literal. Jika kalimat dalam literatur memiliki arti sekunder, harus dimungkinkan bagi pembaca untuk memahami makna ini. Selain itu, pembicara harus mampu memahami makna ini menggunakan pengetahuan mereka tentang konvensi semantik yang ada, sebagai teman saya lakukan ketika dia memahami apa yang siswa dimaksud. Sayangnya, hal ini tidak dapat dilakukan. "Perjantanan menyerupai teliti dan cermat dan siswa jelas tidak berarti bahwa teman saya adalah pederast a. Ini tip dia pergi ke konvensi semantik yang mengungkapkan makna tambahan dari siswa malapropism. Apa-apa tentang kalimat karya sastra. Demikian pula kiat off pembaca untuk semantik konvensi yang mereka butuhkan untuk mempekerjakan dalam menangkap makna non-literal. kalimat dalam karya Bterature adalah palsu, butnreaders mengharapkan mereka untuk menjadi palsu. Pembaca memahami dengan baik konvensi bercerita terdiri dari kalimat palsu. fakta bahwa kalimat yang jelas palsu tidak tidak diatur pembaca off pada pencarian untuk menemukan makna tambahan. kalimat-kalimat ini biasanya tidak menyerupai kalimat lainnya. Diambil di indra literal mereka, mereka sangat tepat dalam konteks mereka. pembaca bave ada untuk menggunakan konvensi semantik tapi yang jelas ketika mereka pegang arti dari kalimat dalam literatur. Anggaplah, misalnya, pembaca menemukan kalimat, A rubah lapar mencoba untuk mencapai gugusannya yang ia lihat tergantung dari pohon anggur yang terlatih di pohon, tapi mereka terlalu tinggi. Pembaca memahami arti dari kalimat ini menggunakan konvensi yang menetapkan bahwa 'rubah' berarti rubah, anggur berarti anggur, dan sebagainya. Secara umum, hanya konvensi semantik biasa bekerja dalam menangkap makna dari kalimat karya sastra,
Ironi adalah fenomena lain yang mungkin tampaknya mendukung pandangan bahwa kalimat dalam karya sastra memiliki makna tambahan. Laporan ironis memiliki makna selain makna literal mereka. Membayangkan bahwa saya menemukan di kotak surat saya memo konyol lain dari Akademik Wakil Presiden. (Mungkin departemen saya diarahkan untuk mengajar kursus pada Hume dengan fokus Asia-Pasifik). "Itu hanya indah ', seruku. Pernyataan saya secara harfiah berarti bahwa memo itu indah, jelas, kata-kata saya dimaksudkan ironisnya. Mereka juga berarti, kira-kira yang memo tersebut tidak indah. Ini mungkin berpikir bahwa, seperti pernyataan ironis