Semantics

Semantics (from Ancient Greek: σημαντικός sēman-tikós, “significant”)[1][2] is the study of meaning. Itfocuses on the relation between signifiers, like words,phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for;their denotation. Linguistic semantics is the study ofmeaning that is used for understanding human expressionthrough language. Other forms of semantics include thesemantics of programming languages, formal logics, andsemiotics. In international scientific vocabulary seman-tics is also called semasiology.The word semantics itself denotes a range of ideas—fromthe popular to the highly technical. It is often used inordinary language for denoting a problem of understand-ing that comes down to word selection or connotation.This problem of understanding has been the subject ofmany formal enquiries, over a long period of time, es-pecially in the field of formal semantics. In linguistics,it is the study of the interpretation of signs or symbolsused in agents or communities within particular circum-stances and contexts.[3] Within this view, sounds, fa-cial expressions, body language, and proxemics have se-mantic (meaningful) content, and each comprises severalbranches of study. In written language, things like para-graph structure and punctuation bear semantic content;other forms of language bear other semantic content.[3]

The formal study of semantics intersects with many otherfields of inquiry, including lexicology, syntax, pragmatics,etymology and others. Independently, semantics is alsoa well-defined field in its own right, often with syntheticproperties.[4] In the philosophy of language, semanticsand reference are closely connected. Further related fieldsinclude philology, communication, and semiotics. Theformal study of semantics can therefore be manifold andcomplex.Semantics contrasts with syntax, the study of the combi-natorics of units of a language (without reference to theirmeaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationshipsbetween the symbols of a language, their meaning, andthe users of the language.[5] Semantics as a field of studyalso has significant ties to various representational theo-ries of meaning including truth theories of meaning, co-herence theories of meaning, and correspondence theo-ries of meaning. Each of these is related to the generalphilosophical study of reality and the representation ofmeaning.

1 Linguistics

In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devotedto the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels ofwords, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse(termed texts, or narratives). The study of semanticsis also closely linked to the subjects of representation,reference and denotation. The basic study of semantics isoriented to the examination of the meaning of signs, andthe study of relations between different linguistic unitsand compounds: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy,hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy,holonymy, paronyms. A key concern is how mean-ing attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a resultof the composition from smaller units of meaning.Traditionally, semantics has included the study of senseand denotative reference, truth conditions, argumentstructure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and thelinkage of all of these to syntax.

2 Montague grammar

In the late 1960s, Richard Montague proposed a systemfor defining semantic entries in the lexicon in terms of thelambda calculus. In these terms, the syntactic parse ofthe sentence John ate every bagel would consist of a sub-ject (John) and a predicate (ate every bagel); Montaguedemonstrated that the meaning of the sentence altogethercould be decomposed into the meanings of its parts andin relatively few rules of combination. The logical predi-cate thus obtained would be elaborated further, e.g. usingtruth theory models, which ultimately relate meanings toa set of Tarskiian universals, which may lie outside thelogic. The notion of such meaning atoms or primitivesis basic to the language of thought hypothesis from the1970s.Despite its elegance, Montague grammar was limited bythe context-dependent variability in word sense, and ledto several attempts at incorporating context, such as:

• Situation semantics (1980s): truth-values are in-complete, they get assigned based on context

• Generative lexicon (1990s): categories (types) areincomplete, and get assigned based on context

1

2 5 THEORIES IN SEMANTICS

3 Dynamic turn in semantics

In Chomskyan linguistics there was no mechanism forthe learning of semantic relations, and the nativist viewconsidered all semantic notions as inborn. Thus, evennovel concepts were proposed to have been dormant insome sense. This view was also thought unable to addressmany issues such as metaphor or associative meanings,and semantic change, where meanings within a linguis-tic community change over time, and qualia or subjectiveexperience. Another issue not addressed by the nativistmodel was how perceptual cues are combined in thought,e.g. in mental rotation.[6]

This view of semantics, as an innate finite meaninginherent in a lexical unit that can be composed togenerate meanings for larger chunks of discourse, isnow being fiercely debated in the emerging domain ofcognitive linguistics[7] and also in the non-Fodorian campin philosophy of language.[8] The challenge is motivatedby:

• factors internal to language, such as the problem ofresolving indexical or anaphora (e.g. this x, him, lastweek). In these situations context serves as the input,but the interpreted utterance also modifies the con-text, so it is also the output. Thus, the interpretationis necessarily dynamic and the meaning of sentencesis viewed as contexts changing potentials instead ofpropositions.

• factors external to language, i.e. language is not a setof labels stuck on things, but “a toolbox, the impor-tance of whose elements lie in the way they functionrather than their attachments to things.”[8] This viewreflects the position of the later Wittgenstein and hisfamous game example, and is related to the positionsof Quine, Davidson, and others.

A concrete example of the latter phenomenon is seman-tic underspecification – meanings are not complete with-out some elements of context. To take an example ofone word, red, its meaning in a phrase such as red bookis similar to many other usages, and can be viewed ascompositional.[9] However, the colours implied in phrasessuch as red wine (very dark), and red hair (coppery), orred soil, or red skin are very different. Indeed, thesecolours by themselves would not be called red by nativespeakers. These instances are contrastive, so red wine isso called only in comparison with the other kind of wine(which also is not white for the same reasons). This viewgoes back to de Saussure:

Each of a set of synonyms like redouter ('todread'), craindre ('to fear'), avoir peur ('to beafraid') has its particular value only becausethey stand in contrast with one another. Noword has a value that can be identified inde-pendently of what else is in its vicinity.[10]

and may go back to earlier Indian views on language, es-pecially the Nyaya view of words as indicators and notcarriers of meaning.[11]

An attempt to defend a system based on propositionalmeaning for semantic underspecification can be foundin the generative lexicon model of James Pustejovsky,who extends contextual operations (based on type shift-ing) into the lexicon. Thus meanings are generated “onthe fly” (as you go), based on finite context.

4 Prototype theory

Another set of concepts related to fuzziness in seman-tics is based on prototypes. The work of Eleanor Roschin the 1970s led to a view that natural categories are notcharacterizable in terms of necessary and sufficient con-ditions, but are graded (fuzzy at their boundaries) and in-consistent as to the status of their constituent members.One may compare it with Jung's archetype, though theconcept of archetype sticks to static concept. Some post-structuralists are against the fixed or static meaning of thewords. Derrida, following Nietzsche, talked about slip-pages in fixed meanings.Systems of categories are not objectively out there inthe world but are rooted in people’s experience. Thesecategories evolve as learned concepts of the world –meaning is not an objective truth, but a subjective con-struct, learned from experience, and language arises outof the “grounding of our conceptual systems in sharedembodiment and bodily experience”.[12] A corollary ofthis is that the conceptual categories (i.e. the lexicon)will not be identical for different cultures, or indeed, forevery individual in the same culture. This leads to an-other debate (see the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis or Eskimowords for snow).

5 Theories in semantics

5.1 Model theoretic semantics

Main article: formal semantics (linguistics)

Originates from Montague’s work (see above). A highlyformalized theory of natural language semantics in whichexpressions are assigned denotations (meanings) such asindividuals, truth values, or functions from one of these toanother. The truth of a sentence, and more interestingly,its logical relation to other sentences, is then evaluatedrelative to a model.

5.5 Computational semantics 3

5.2 Formal (or truth-conditional) seman-tics

Main article: truth-conditional semantics

Pioneered by the philosopher Donald Davidson, anotherformalized theory, which aims to associate each natu-ral language sentence with a meta-language descriptionof the conditions under which it is true, for example:'Snow is white' is true if and only if snow is white. Thechallenge is to arrive at the truth conditions for any sen-tences from fixed meanings assigned to the individualwords and fixed rules for how to combine them. Inpractice, truth-conditional semantics is similar to model-theoretic semantics; conceptually, however, they differin that truth-conditional semantics seeks to connect lan-guage with statements about the real world (in the formof meta-language statements), rather than with abstractmodels.

5.3 Lexical and conceptual semantics

Main article: conceptual semantics

This theory is an effort to explain properties of argumentstructure. The assumption behind this theory is that syn-tactic properties of phrases reflect the meanings of thewords that head them.[13] With this theory, linguists canbetter deal with the fact that subtle differences in wordmeaning correlate with other differences in the syntacticstructure that the word appears in.[13] The way this is goneabout is by looking at the internal structure of words.[14]These small parts that make up the internal structure ofwords are termed semantic primitives.[14]

5.4 Lexical semantics

Main article: lexical semantics

A linguistic theory that investigates word meaning. Thistheory understands that the meaning of a word is fullyreflected by its context. Here, the meaning of a wordis constituted by its contextual relations.[15] Therefore,a distinction between degrees of participation as well asmodes of participation are made.[15] In order to accom-plish this distinction any part of a sentence that bears ameaning and combines with the meanings of other con-stituents is labeled as a semantic constituent. Seman-tic constituents that cannot be broken down into moreelementary constituents are labeled minimal semanticconstituents.[15]

5.5 Computational semantics

Main article: computational semantics

Computational semantics is focused on the processingof linguistic meaning. In order to do this concrete al-gorithms and architectures are described. Within thisframework the algorithms and architectures are also an-alyzed in terms of decidability, time/space complex-ity, data structures they require and communicationprotocols.[16]

6 Computer science

Main article: Semantics (computer science)

In computer science, the term semantics refers to themeaning of languages, as opposed to their form (syntax).According to Euzenat, semantics “provides the rules forinterpreting the syntax which do not provide the mean-ing directly but constrains the possible interpretations ofwhat is declared.”[17] In other words, semantics is aboutinterpretation of an expression. Additionally, the termis applied to certain types of data structures specificallydesigned and used for representing information content.

6.1 Programming languages

The semantics of programming languages and other lan-guages is an important issue and area of study in computerscience. Like the syntax of a language, its semantics canbe defined exactly.For instance, the following statements use different syn-taxes, but cause the same instructions to be executed:Generally these operations would all perform an arith-metical addition of 'y' to 'x' and store the result in a vari-able called 'x'.Various ways have been developed to describe thesemantics of programming languages formally, buildingon mathematical logic:[18]

• Operational semantics: The meaning of a constructis specified by the computation it induces when it isexecuted on a machine. In particular, it is of interesthow the effect of a computation is produced.

• Denotational semantics: Meanings are modelled bymathematical objects that represent the effect of ex-ecuting the constructs. Thus only the effect is of in-terest, not how it is obtained.

• Axiomatic semantics: Specific properties of the ef-fect of executing the constructs are expressed as as-sertions. Thus there may be aspects of the execu-tions that are ignored.

4 8 SEE ALSO

6.2 Semantic models

Terms such as semantic network and semantic data modelare used to describe particular types of data model char-acterized by the use of directed graphs in which the ver-tices denote concepts or entities in the world, and the arcsdenote relationships between them.The Semantic Web refers to the extension of the WorldWide Web via embedding added semantic metadata, us-ing semantic data modelling techniques such as ResourceDescription Framework (RDF) and Web Ontology Lan-guage (OWL).

7 Psychology

In psychology, semantic memory is memory for meaning– in other words, the aspect of memory that preservesonly the gist, the general significance, of rememberedexperience – while episodic memory is memory for theephemeral details – the individual features, or the uniqueparticulars of experience. The term 'episodic memory'was introduced by Tulving and Schacter in the contextof 'declarative memory' which involved simple associa-tion of factual or objective information concerning its ob-ject. Word meaning is measured by the company theykeep, i.e. the relationships among words themselves ina semantic network. The memories may be transferredintergenerationally or isolated in one generation due to acultural disruption. Different generations may have dif-ferent experiences at similar points in their own time-lines. This may then create a vertically heterogeneoussemantic net for certain words in an otherwise homoge-neous culture.[19] In a network created by people analyz-ing their understanding of the word (such as Wordnet)the links and decomposition structures of the network arefew in number and kind, and include part of, kind of,and similar links. In automated ontologies the links arecomputed vectors without explicit meaning. Various au-tomated technologies are being developed to compute themeaning of words: latent semantic indexing and supportvector machines as well as natural language processing,neural networks and predicate calculus techniques.Ideasthesia is a psychological phenomenon in which ac-tivation of concepts evokes sensory experiences. For ex-ample, in synesthesia, activation of a concept of a letter(e.g., that of the letter A) evokes sensory-like experiences(e.g., of red color).

8 See also

8.1 Linguistics and semiotics

• Asemic writing

• Cognitive semantics

• Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

• Computational semantics

• Discourse representation theory

• General semantics

• Generative semantics

• Hermeneutics

• Natural semantic metalanguage

• Onomasiology

• Phono-semantic matching

• Pragmatic maxim

• Pragmaticism

• Pragmatism

• Problem of universals

• Semantic change or progression

• Semantic class

• Semantic feature

• Semantic field

• Semantic lexicon

• Semantic primes

• Semantic property

• Sememe

• Semiosis

• Semiotics

• SPL notation

8.2 Logic and mathematics

• Formal logic

• Game semantics

• Model theory

• Gödel’s incompleteness theorems

• Proof-theoretic semantics

• Semantic consequence

• Semantic theory of truth

• Semantics of logic

• Truth-value semantics

5

8.3 Computer science

• Formal semantics of programming languages

• Knowledge representation

• Semantic networks

• Semantic transversal

• Semantic analysis

• Semantic compression

• Semantic HTML

• Semantic integration

• Semantic interpretation

• Semantic link

• Semantic reasoner

• Semantic service oriented architecture

• Semantic spectrum

• Semantic unification

• Semantic Web

8.4 Psychology

• Ideasthesia

9 References[1] σημαντικός. Liddell, Henry George; Scott, Robert; A

Greek–English Lexicon at the Perseus Project

[2] The word is derived from the Ancient Greek word ση-μαντικός (semantikos), “related to meaning, significant”,from σημαίνω semaino, “to signify, to indicate”, which isfrom σῆμα sema, “sign, mark, token”. The plural is usedin analogy with words similar to physics, which was in theneuter plural in Ancient Greek and meant “things relatingto nature”.

[3] Neurath, Otto; Carnap, Rudolf; Morris, Charles F. W.(Editors) (1955). International Encyclopedia of UnifiedScience. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

[4] Cruse, Alan; Meaning and Language: An introduction toSemantics and Pragmatics, Chapter 1, Oxford Textbooksin Linguistics, 2004; Kearns, Kate; Semantics, PalgraveMacMillan 2000; Cruse, D. A.; Lexical Semantics, Cam-bridge, MA, 1986.

[5] Kitcher, Philip; Salmon, Wesley C. (1989). Scientific Ex-planation. Minneapolis, MN: University of MinnesotaPress. p. 35.

[6] Barsalou, L.; Perceptual Symbol Systems, Behavioral andBrain Sciences, 22(4), 1999

[7] Langacker, Ronald W. (1999). Grammar and Conceptu-alization. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyer. ISBN3-11-016603-8.

[8] Peregrin, Jaroslav (2003). Meaning: The Dynamic Turn.Current Research in the Semantics/Pragmatics Interface.London: Elsevier.

[9] Gärdenfors, Peter (2000). Conceptual Spaces: The Ge-ometry of Thought. MIT Press/Bradford Books. ISBN978-0-585-22837-2.

[10] de Saussure, Ferdinand (1916). The Course of GeneralLinguistics (Cours de linguistique générale).

[11] Matilal, Bimal Krishna (1990). The Word and the World:India’s Contribution to the Study of Language. Oxford.The Nyaya andMimamsa schools in Indian vyākaraṇa tra-dition conducted a centuries-long debate on whether sen-tence meaning arises through composition on word mean-ings, which are primary; or whether word meanings areobtained through analysis of sentences where they appear.(Chapter 8).

[12] Lakoff, George; Johnson, Mark (1999). Philosophy in theFlesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Westernthought. Chapter 1. New York, NY: Basic Books. OCLC93961754.

[13] Levin, Beth; Pinker, Steven; Lexical & Conceptual Seman-tics, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA, 1991

[14] Jackendoff, Ray; Semantic Structures, MIT Press, Cam-bridge, MA, 1990

[15] Cruse, D.; Lexical Semantics, CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge, MA, 1986

[16] Nerbonne, J.; The Handbook of Contemporary Seman-tic Theory (ed. Lappin, S.), Blackwell Publishing, Cam-bridge, MA, 1996

[17] Euzenat, Jerome. Ontology Matching. Springer-VerlagBerlin Heidelberg, 2007, p. 36

[18] Nielson, Hanne Riis; Nielson, Flemming (1995). Seman-tics with Applications, A Formal Introduction (1st ed.).Chicester, England: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-92980-8.

[19] Giannini, A. J.; Semiotic and Semantic Implications of“Authenticity”, Psychological Reports, 106(2):611–612,2010

10 External links• semanticsarchive.net• Teaching page for A-level semantics• Chomsky, Noam; On Referring, Harvard University,30 October 2007 (video)

• Jackendoff, Ray; Conceptual Semantics, HarvardUniversity, 13 November 2007 (video)

• Semantics: an interview with Jerry Fodor (ReVEL,vol. 5, no. 8 (2007))

6 11 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

11 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

11.1 Text• Semantics Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics?oldid=671135429 Contributors: The Anome, Youssefsan, Vaganyik, Or-tolan88, Ben-Zin~enwiki, Hannes Hirzel, Heron, Ryguasu, Netesq, Stevertigo, Michael Hardy, Pit~enwiki, Gdarin, Rp, Kku,Looxix~enwiki, Glenn, Rossami, Andres, Hectorthebat, Jitse Niesen, Mjklin, Haukurth, Shizhao, Fvw, Jens Meiert, Jon Roland, Seriv,Robbot, Lambda, Pigsonthewing, Jakohn, Kiwibird, Sverdrup, Rursus, Moink, Spellbinder, Marc Venot, Gwalla, Markus Krötzsch,Jpta~enwiki, HHirzel, Everyking, Zhen Lin, Eequor, Khalid hassani, Jackol, Javier Carro, JoJan, Mukerjee, Augur, Kntg, Bornslippy,Urhixidur, Yuriz, Lucidish, Rich Farmbrough, Cacycle, Rama, Slipstream, Kzzl, Dbachmann, Paul August, Jaberwocky6669, Evice, ElC, Chalst, Joanjoc~enwiki, Linkoman, Enric Naval, Nortexoid, Jonsafari, Jooyoonchung, Helix84, Anthony Appleyard, Mark Dinge-manse, Sligocki, Cdc, Sabrebattletank, Ish ishwar, Tycho, EvenT, Jason L. Gohlke, Redvers, Simlorie, Galaxiaad, Ott, Jtauber, Velho,Woohookitty, Mindmatrix, Kokoriko, Kelisi, Analogisub, SDC, Mandarax, Graham87, Imersion, Rjwilmsi, Mayumashu, Koavf, Jivecat,Dmccreary, Brighterorange, Mlinar~enwiki, NeoAmsterdam, FlaBot, Sinatra, Isotope23, Ben Babcock, Vonkje, Comiscuous, Lambyuk,Chobot, Sonic Mew, Roboto de Ajvol, YurikBot, Wavelength, Hairy Dude, Retodon8, Stephenb, Anomalocaris, NawlinWiki, Maunus,MarkBrooks, JECompton, WAS 4.250, Light current, G. Lakoff, Lt-wiki-bot, Donald Albury, SMcCandlish, JuJube, Pred, AGToth, Nick-elShoe, Sardanaphalus, SmackBot, Zerida, Unyoyega, Shamalyguy, Lindosland, Chris the speller, MasterofUnvrs314, MK8, MalafayaBot,Droll, Jerome Charles Potts, A. B., Scwlong, Zsinj, Frap, Ioscius, Chlewbot, SundarBot, Khoikhoi, Cybercobra, Iblardi, Battamer, JonAwbrey, Byelf2007, SashatoBot, 16@r, Hvn0413, Nabeth, Kvng, Hu12, Gandalf1491, J Di, DEddy, Ziusudra, George100, Stifynse-mons, Wolfdog, Sir Vicious, Kensall, Gregbard, FilipeS, Cydebot, Warhorus, ST47, Quibik, Nickleus, Gimmetrow, Thijs!bot, Wikid77,Runch, Mbell, Dalahäst, Azymuthca, X201, Nick Number, Mentifisto, AntiVandalBot, Shawn wiki, Gioto, Widefox, TimVickers, Dy-lan Lake, Danny lost, JAnDbot, MER-C, Shermanmonroe, Jmchambers90, Dcooper, .anacondabot, Daveh1, AndriesVanRenssen, Tmus-grove, Nicodemus13, Mahitgar, Revery~enwiki, Mechanismic, Ekotkie, MartinBot, J.delanoy, Cyborg Ninja, Piercetheorganist, Dbiel,Rod57, AKAMBG, Lygophile, Erick.Antezana, Lrunge, RasputinJSvengali, Macedonian, LokiClock, Philip Trueman, Amos Han, TXiK-iBoT, Purpose Observatory, Aaeamdar, Goberiko~enwiki, HillarySco, Merijn2, Synthebot, Lova Falk, Cnilep, Jimbo2222, Logan, Botev,SieBot, Nubiatech, Kgoarany, Asderff, PaulColby, Jerryobject, Yerpo, ScAvenger lv, Strife911, Bguest, MiNombreDeGuerra, Doc hon-cho, CharlesGillingham, Emptymountains, Martarius, ClueBot, Bbadree, Tanglewood4, Eklir, Niceguyedc, DragonBot, Awi007, PixelBot,Vanisheduser12345, Rhododendrites, MacedonianBoy, Cenarium, Aleksd, Micmachete, MystBot, Alanthehat, Addbot, Rdanneskjold, Thesingapore ministry of education sucks, AVand, Guoguo12, Landon1980, Friginator, K1US, Aboctok, Ayatniazi, CanadianLinuxUser,Pirtskhalava, CarsracBot, Numbo3-bot, Erutuon, Tide rolls, JAHendler, Krixou, Legobot, Luckas-bot, TaBOT-zerem, Vanished userrt41as76lk, AnakngAraw, 8ung3st, Molewood6, Rockypedia, Rjanag, Govindmaheswaran, Jim1138, Materialscientist, Citation bot, Lil-Helpa, Xqbot, Hyggelig, Lynch9000s, Aenioc, JustinCope82, Omnipaedista, Benjamin Dominic, FrescoBot, Levalley, Citation bot 1,Mundart, Smithonian, Harold Philby, Pinethicket, Joost.b, RedBot, MastiBot, Nora lives, FoxBot, عقیل ,کاشف Jonkerz, Lotje, Theyeti-man12345, RobotQuistnix, 2bluey, Mchcopl, Zegarad, EmausBot, Jefffi, Active Banana, Hpvpp, Alexey.kudinkin, Llamas4drama'10, Un-real7, SporkBot, Gabnh, Eric Biggs, Edunoramus, Kgsbot, Ready, Odysseus1479, Tijfo098, Manytexts, ClueBot NG, Squarrels, Aniket-dalal, Movses-bot, Helpful Pixie Bot, BG19bot, BenSmak, Boblibr, Lawandeconomics1, Davidiad, Tom Pippens, Semantia, Unconscious-Inferno, Darylgolden, Suraduttashandilya, Dave5702, Kevin12xd, Faizan, Bienmanchot, Ahernandez33, Didigodot, Noizy Boy, Sarah-jane212013, Pavel Stankov, Csusarah, FelixRosch, Good afternoon, Nøkkenbuer, Spyker247, KasparBot, Vjpand and Anonymous: 278

11.2 Images• File:Accusative_alignment.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Accusative_alignment.svg License:Public domain Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:RedHotHeat

• File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Originalartist: ?

• File:ParseTree.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/ParseTree.svg License: Public domain Contributors:en:Image:ParseTree.jpg Original artist: Traced by User:Stannered

• File:Wikibooks-logo-en-noslogan.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Wikibooks-logo-en-noslogan.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: User:Bastique, User:Ramac et al.

• File:Wiktionary-logo-en.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Wiktionary-logo-en.svg License: Publicdomain Contributors: Vector version of Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png. Original artist: Vectorized by Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs),based on original logo tossed together by Brion Vibber

11.3 Content license• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0