It seems to me that here "sense and denotation" correspond to Frege's "Sinn und Bedeutung". The problem is that some translators translated "Bedeutung" with "Reference". Since you are using the term "Reference" to describe the link between a Word (or signification) and its Sense, a space for the notion of "Bedeutung" was left in the schema, hence filled with "Denotation". But this latter term is opposed to "Connotation" in some theories (e.g. in J.S. Mill's one), so my questions are: are all my above conjectures correct? How does "Connotation" (which can be resumed as a culturally-biased spreading of use of a certain Sense in a language) fit within this schema? Is it still related/opposed to Denotation (even if here the latter one links a Word with their Object while Connotation does not at all), is it more related (as it actually seems) to "Sense" and "Reference" as you used them, or is it something between "Reference" and "Denotation"?
Thank you for helpful explanation, but there's still unclear side of what you had presented in this lecture. It's intension and extension because they belong to these theories. I will be grateful to you if you give us general view. Anyway thank you too much
Verbs "denote actions". Do people not realise the issue with this? What is an action? Do you mean a single instance, or a class of actions, or a set of actions? Does an action "exist"? This leads to a fathomless depth that the originators of this theory cannot account for.
Perhaps what you're looking for is about the debate on the notion of "event", which fits better to the above correlation "verbs denote events", but still this is not exhaustive. I suggest you to look for the notion of "event" in Leonard Talmy's work. You may find it useful
