从语言学的角度，meaning,reference,denotation,defonition之间的区别和联系是什么？最好能举例说明。
2，DENOTATION：一个词最特定的或最直接的意义，与它的喻意或相关意相对。
3，REFERENCE：包含上两项。
4，补充一个：FIGURATIVE OR ASSOCIATED MEANINGS表示引申或比喻的意思。
5，DEFINATION（你可能打错了）：描述…的性质或基本特征，人为的解释说明，下定义的意思。
拿蜡烛还做例子。
1，一般意义上的蜡烛。
2，蜡烛
3，还是蜡烛
4，比喻老师
5，用蜡做的中间有棉绳做灯心的，可通过点燃灯心照明或装饰房间的居家用品。本回答被网友采纳
Assumptions
Reference: a unique and real entity that an expression represents.
Sense: a facet of a referent that an expression represents.
Connotation: the settled emotional content of an expression (especially of a word).
Denotation: the meaning of an expression (especially of a word) less its connotation.
Intension: the truth conditions of an expression [1].
Extension: all entities that fulfill the the intension of an expression [1].
Conflations
My concepts of extension and of denotation seem the same. For example, it seems to me that the expressions pro-choice and pro-abortion[2] have the same extension[1], the same denotation, but different connotations. So denotation and extension seem the same to me.
Similarly, my concepts of extension, denotation, and reference seem nearly the same, except that my concept of reference includes only expressions that represent unique and real referents.
Also similarly, my concepts of sense and of connotation seem nearly the same, except that my concept of sense includes only expressions that represent unique and real referents. (E.g. Bruce Wayne and Batman are two senses of the same referent.)
Questions
Which, if any, of the aforementioned terms did I incorrectly define?
What distinguishes denotation from intension?
Notes
[1] Some meaningful expressions may not comprise all components necessary to state anything true or false. (I.e. unsaturated predicates or arguments). Logicians and linguists use variables to represent an absent component, such as in ∃x(Px), where only P has a stated interpretation. In such a case, the intension of the expression ∃x(Px) is that [[∃x(Px)]] is true iff it is true that x exists and that the interpretation of P is true of x.
[2] I acknowledge that, strictly speaking, [[pro-choice]] ≠ [[pro-abortion]]. I disregarded that fact for the sake of the example.
