Article published In:
Review of Cognitive Linguistics: Online-First ArticlesThe view of meaning from a “postclassical” perspective
In recent years, a number of scholars have expressed doubts about the productivity of the concept of
meaning and its associated methodology for modern lexical semantics. This article aims to examine the current
situation by comparing it with the process of transition from classical to quantum physics. Empirical data that challenge
classical interpretations are briefly analyzed in a special section, whilst the subsequent sections address alternative theories
that propose new methodological frameworks. Particular attention is paid to the ad hoc СС & Ms theory developed by Daniel
Casasanto and colleagues, though Hans-Jörg Schmid’s Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model and the Motivation &
Sedimentation Model formulated by Jordan Zlatev and colleagues are also touched upon. In the final section, frame semantics, as
presented by Charles Fillmore, is revisited, with a focus on his dichotomy of U-semantics and T-semantics. A significant result of
the analysis of Fillmore’s perspectives is the assertion that the concept of frame in Fillmore’s construal can serve as
an alternative to the concept of meaning in its classical interpretation.
Keywords: meaning, frame semantics, ad hoc СС & Ms theory, U‑semantics , T-semantics
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.The concept of meaning in the “classical” perspective
- 3.The empirical evidence that does not fit within the “classical” concept of meaning
- 4.The new perspectives in philosophy and cognitive science
- 5.The “postclassical” theories in cognitive semantics
- 6.Charles Fillmore’s “frame semantics”
- 7.Conclusion
- Notes
-
References
Published online: 16 July 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00196.gle
https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00196.gle
References (87)
Apostolopoulos, D. (2019). Merleau-Ponty’s
phenomenology of language. London & New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.
Barsalou, L. (1992). Frames,
concepts, and conceptual fields. In A. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames,
fields, and
contrasts (pp. 21–74). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barsalou, L. W. (2020). Challenges
and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of
Cognition,
3
(1), 311, 1–24.
Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J. (2021). Metalinguistic
relativity. Does one’s ontology determine one’s view on linguistic relativity. Language and
Communication,
76
(4), 35–46.
Bohr, N. (1963). Essays,
1958–1962, on atomic physics and human knowledge. New York: Interscience Publishers.
Burkhardt, H. (1974). Anmerkungen
zur Logik, Ontologie, und Semantik bei Leibniz [Notes on logic, ontology, and semantics in
Leibniz]. Studia
Leibnitiana,
6
1, 49–68.
Casasanto, D., & Lupyan, G. (2015). All
concepts are ad hoc concepts. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The
conceptual mind: New directions in the study of
concepts (pp. 543–566). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Cienki, A. (2007). Frames,
idealized cognitive models, and domains. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The
Oxford handbook of cognitive
linguistics (pp. 170–187). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clancey, W. J. (1997). Situated
cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
(2008). Supersizing
the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford & NY: Oxford University Press.
Devyldier, S. & Zlatev, J. (2020). Cutting
and breaking metaphors of the self and the Motivation & Sedimentation
Model. In A. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative
meaning construction in thought and
language (pp. 253–281). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Fauconnier, G. (1985). Mental
spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Fillmore, Ch. (1976). Frame
semantics and the nature of language. In St. Harnad, H. Steklis & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Annals
of the New York academy of sciences: Conference on the origin and development of language and
speech, 2801 (pp. 20–32). New York: The New York Academy of Sciences.
Fillmore, Ch., & Atkins, B. (1994). Starting
where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational
lexicography. In B. Atkins & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational
approach to the
lexicon (pp. 349–393). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Frede, M. (1994). The
Stoic notion of a Lekton
. In S. Everson (Ed.), Language (pp. 109–128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist
interventions: Rethinking the mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D. (2006). Introduction:
A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics. In D. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive
Linguistics: Basic
readings (pp. 1–28). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
(2006a). Words
and other wonders: papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P. (1994). The
structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: M. de Gruyter.
Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Yv. (Eds.). (2010). Advances
in cognitive sociolinguistics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Gibbs, R. W. Jr. (2006). Embodiment
and cognitive science. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibson, J. J. (2015). The
ecological approach to visual perception. New York & London: Psychology Press.
Gilquin, G. (2006). The
place of prototypicality in corpus linguistics: Causation in the hot
seat. In S. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora
in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and
lexis (pp. 159–192). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Glebkin, V. (2013). A
socio-cultural history of the machine metaphor. Review of Cognitive
Linguistics,
11
(1), 145–162.
(2013a). The
Conceptual Integration Theory of Fauconnier and Turner (An essay of systemic analysis). Social
Sciences,
44
(4), 69–84.
(2015). Is
conceptual blending the key to the mystery of human evolution and cognition? Cognitive
Linguistics,
26
(1), 95–111.
(2024). Cognitive
Semantics: A cultural-historical perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Glynn, D. (2010). Corpus-driven
Cognitive Semantics. Introduction to the field. In D. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative
methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven
approaches (pp. 1–42). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Heelan, P. (2016). The
observable: Heisenberg’s philosophy of quantum mechanics. New York: Peter Lang.
Hohenhaus, P. (1996). Bouncebackability: A Web-as-corpus-based case study of a new formation, its interpretation, generalization/spread and subsequent decline. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, 3(2), 17–27.
Howard, D. (2022). The
Copenhagen interpretation. In O. Friere Jr. (Ed.), Oxford
handbook of the history of quantum
interpretations (pp. 521–542). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Jemmer, M. (1974). The
philosophy of quantum mechanics: The interpretations of quantum mechanics in historical
perspective. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Johnson, M. (2007). The
meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Krois, J., Rosengren, M., Steidele, A., & Westerkamp, D. (eds.) (2007). Embodiment
in cognition and culture. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women,
fire and dangerous things. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors
we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy
in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic books.
Langacker, R. (2008). Cognitive
grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Leibniz, G. (1996). New
essays on human understanding. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. (First published
1765)
Long, A. (2005). Stoic
linguistics, Plato’s Cratylus, and Augustine’s De
dialectica
. In D. Frede & B. Inwood (Eds.), Language
and learning: Philosophy of language in the Hellenistic
Age (pp. 36–55). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lupyan, G. & Casasanto, D. (2015). Meaningless
words promote meaningful categorization. Language and
Cognition, 71, 167–193.
Maat, J. (2004). Philosophical
languages in the seventeenth century: Dalgarno, Wilkins,
Leibniz. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Madzia, R., & Jung, M. (Eds.) (2016). Pragmatism
and embodied cognitive science: from bodily intersubjectivity to symbolic articulation. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter.
Manetti, G. (1993). Theories
of the sign in classical antiquity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Mates, B. (1989). The
philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mehra, J. & Rechenberg, H. (1982–2001). The
historical development of quantum theory. New York: Springer.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1967). La structure du comportement [The structure of
behavior]. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
Minsky, M. (1975). A
framework for representing knowledge. In P. Winston (Ed.), The
psychology of computer
vision (pp. 211–77). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Noё, A. (2009). Out
of our heads: Why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of
consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang.
Ogden, Ch., & Richards, I. (1923). The
meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & company, inc.
Ohara, K. (2018). Relations
between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet
construction. In B. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography:
Constructicon development across
languages (pp. 141–163). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Posner, M. (1986). Empirical
studies of prototypes. In C. Craig (Ed.), Noun
classes and
categorization (pp. 53–61). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
(1975a). Cognitive
Representations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General,
104
1, 192–233.
(1978). Principles
of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Еds.), Cognition
and
categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates; New York: distributed by Halsted Press.
Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, Ch. R., Baker, C. F. & Scheffczyk, J. (2016). FrameNet
II: Extended theory and practice. [URL]
Ruthenford, D. (1995). Philosophy
and language in Leibniz. In N. Jolley (Ed.), The
Cambridge companion to
Leibniz (pp. 224–269). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Schmid, H.-J. (2020). The
dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, K. (2013). Frames
and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Taylor, J. (2015). Prototype
effects in grammar. In E. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook
of cognitive
linguistics (pp. 562–579). Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The
embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Walker, D. (1972). Leibniz
and language. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes,
35
1, 297–304.
Weber, M. (1904). Die « Objectivität » sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer
Erkenntnis [The ‘objectivity’ of sociological and socio-political
knowledge]. Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft und
Socialpolitik,
19
1, 22–97.
(2015). Innate
conceptual primitives manifested in the languages of the world and in infant
cognition. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The
conceptual mind: New directions in the study of
concepts (pp. 379–412). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Yeh, W., & Barsalou, L. (2006). The
situated nature of concepts. The American Journal of
Psychology,
119
(3), 349–384.
Ziemke, T., Zlatev, J., & Frank, R. M. (Eds.) (2007). Body,
language, and mind. Vol. 1. Embodiment. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Zlatev, J., & Blomberg, J. (2019). Norms
of language: What kinds and where from? Insights from
phenomenology. In A. Mäkilähde, V. Leppanen, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), Normativity
in language and
linguistics (pp. 69–101). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.