[PRL] Denotation: barbarous neologism required

[John Clements]

Suppose A represents B.  Do we say that A is the representation of B  
or that B is the representation of A?

Concrete example: let the table represent the street, and my hand  
represent the car.  Do we say that my hand is the representation of  
the car, or that the car is the representation of my hand?

I claim that the former is the standard one: that is, my hand is the  
representation of the car.

Now:

Suppose A denotes B.  Do we say that A is the denotation of B or that  
B is the denotation of A?

Bizarrely, it appears that most people in the languages community use  
the latter.  That is: suppose that "(lambda (x) x)" denotes the  
platonic identity function.  I believe we say that the program is the  
denotation of the function, rather than that the function is the  
denotation of the program.

This irritates me. I claim we need a new word for "the thing that A  
denotes".

Is there already a standard term for this?

John



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2484 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.ccs.neu.edu/pipermail/prl/attachments/20091112/aeba4574/attachment.bin