1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Review of Cognitive Linguistics. Published under the auspices of the Spanish Cognitive Linguistics Association
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of The view of meaning from a “postclassical” perspective
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In recent years, a number of scholars have expressed doubts about the productivity of the concept of 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 in Fillmore’s construal can serve as an alternative to the concept of in its classical interpretation.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00196.gle
2024-07-16
2025-04-21

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00196.gle
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Apostolopoulos, D.
    (2019) Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of language. London & New York: Rowman & Littlefield International.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Barsalou, L.
    (1992) Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. InA. Lehrer & E. F. Kittay (Eds.), Frames, fields, and contrasts (pp. –). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2008) Grounded cognition. The Annual Review of Psychology, , –. 10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639 [Google Scholar]
  4. (2010) Grounded cognition: Past, present and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, (), –. 10.1111/j.1756‑8765.2010.01115.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2010.01115.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Barsalou, L. W.
    (2020) Challenges and opportunities for grounding cognition. Journal of Cognition, (), , –. 10.5334/joc.116
     https://doi.org/10.5334/joc.116 [Google Scholar]
  6. Blomberg, J., & Zlatev, J.
    (2021) Metalinguistic relativity. Does one’s ontology determine one’s view on linguistic relativity. Language and Communication, (), –. 10.1016/j.langcom.2020.09.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2020.09.007 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bohr, N.
    (1963) Essays, 1958–1962, on atomic physics and human knowledge. New York: Interscience Publishers.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Burkhardt, H.
    (1974) Anmerkungen zur Logik, Ontologie, und Semantik bei Leibniz [Notes on logic, ontology, and semantics in Leibniz]. Studia Leibnitiana, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Casasanto, D., & Lupyan, G.
    (2015) All concepts are ad hoc concepts. InE. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. –). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9383.003.0031
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9383.003.0031 [Google Scholar]
  10. Cienki, A.
    (2007) Frames, idealized cognitive models, and domains. InD. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. –). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Clancey, W. J.
    (1997) Situated cognition: On human knowledge and computer representations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark, A.
    (1999) An embodied cognitive science?Trends in Cognitive Sciences, (), –. 10.1016/S1364‑6613(99)01361‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(99)01361-3 [Google Scholar]
  13. (2008) Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. Oxford & NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333213.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333213.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. Croft, W. & Cruse, A.
    (2004) Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511803864
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864 [Google Scholar]
  15. Devyldier, S. & Zlatev, J.
    (2020) Cutting and breaking metaphors of the self and the Motivation & Sedimentation Model. InA. Baicchi (Ed.), Figurative meaning construction in thought and language (pp. –). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ftl.9.11dev
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ftl.9.11dev [Google Scholar]
  16. Fauconnier, G.
    (1985) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Fillmore, Ch.
    (1976) Frame semantics and the nature of language. InSt. Harnad, H. Steklis & J. Lancaster (Eds.), Annals of the New York academy of sciences: Conference on the origin and development of language and speech, (pp. –). New York: The New York Academy of Sciences. 10.1111/j.1749‑6632.1976.tb25467.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1976.tb25467.x [Google Scholar]
  18. (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Fillmore, Ch., & Atkins, B.
    (1994) Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. InB. Atkins & A. Zampolli (Eds.), Computational approach to the lexicon (pp. –). Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198239796.003.0013
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198239796.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  20. Frede, M.
    (1994) The Stoic notion of a Lekton. InS. Everson (Ed.), Language (pp. –). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Gallagher, S.
    (2017) Enactivist interventions: Rethinking the mind. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198794325.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198794325.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. Geeraerts, D.
    (2006) Introduction: A rough guide to Cognitive Linguistics. InD. Geeraerts (Ed.), Cognitive Linguistics: Basic readings (pp. –). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199901.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199901.1 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2006a) Words and other wonders: papers on lexical and semantic topics. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110219128
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110219128 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2010) Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. (2018) Ten lectures on cognitive sociolinguistics. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Geeraerts, D., Grondelaers, S., & Bakema, P.
    (1994) The structure of lexical variation: Meaning, naming, and context. Berlin & New York: M. de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110873061
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110873061 [Google Scholar]
  27. Geeraerts, D., Kristiansen, G., & Peirsman, Yv.
    (Eds.) (2010) Advances in cognitive sociolinguistics. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110226461
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226461 [Google Scholar]
  28. Gibbs, R. W. Jr.
    (2006) Embodiment and cognitive science. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Gibson, J. J.
    (2015) The ecological approach to visual perception. New York & London: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Gilquin, G.
    (2006) The place of prototypicality in corpus linguistics: Causation in the hot seat. InS. Gries & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistics: Corpus-based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. –). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197709.159
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197709.159 [Google Scholar]
  31. Glebkin, V.
    (2013) A socio-cultural history of the machine metaphor. Review of Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/rcl.11.1.04gle
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.11.1.04gle [Google Scholar]
  32. (2013a) The Conceptual Integration Theory of Fauconnier and Turner (An essay of systemic analysis). Social Sciences, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. (2015) Is conceptual blending the key to the mystery of human evolution and cognition?Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0067
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0067 [Google Scholar]
  34. (2024) Cognitive Semantics: A cultural-historical perspective. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/clscc.15
     https://doi.org/10.1075/clscc.15 [Google Scholar]
  35. Glynn, D.
    (2010) Corpus-driven Cognitive Semantics. Introduction to the field. InD. Glynn & K. Fischer (Eds.), Quantitative methods in cognitive semantics: Corpus-driven approaches (pp. –). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110226423.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110226423.1 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hass, L.
    (2008) Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Heelan, P.
    (2016) The observable: Heisenberg’s philosophy of quantum mechanics. New York: Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑1‑4539‑1713‑8
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1713-8 [Google Scholar]
  38. Helrich, C.
    (2021) The quantum theory – origins and ideas. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑79268‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79268-8 [Google Scholar]
  39. 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, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Howard, D.
    (2022) The Copenhagen interpretation. InO. Friere Jr. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of the history of quantum interpretations (pp. –). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Hutchins, E.
    (1995) Cognition in the Wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1881.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Jemmer, M.
    (1974) The philosophy of quantum mechanics: The interpretations of quantum mechanics in historical perspective. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Johnson, M.
    (2007) The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226026992.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226026992.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Kahneman, D.
    (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Kövecses, Z.
    (2017) Levels of metaphor. Cognitive Linguistics, (), –. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0052
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0052 [Google Scholar]
  46. Krois, J., Rosengren, M., Steidele, A., & Westerkamp, D.
    (eds.) (2007) Embodiment in cognition and culture. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/aicr.71
     https://doi.org/10.1075/aicr.71 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lakoff, G.
    (1987) Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  48. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    (1999) Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. New York: Basic books.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Landes, D.
    (2013) The Merleau-Ponty dictionary. London & New York: Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9781350250314
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350250314 [Google Scholar]
  51. Langacker, R.
    (2008) Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Leibniz, G.
    (1996) New essays on human understanding. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. (First published 1765) 10.1017/CBO9781139166874
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166874 [Google Scholar]
  53. (2006) The art of controversies. Dordrecht: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Long, A.
    (2005) Stoic linguistics, Plato’s Cratylus, and Augustine’s De dialectica. InD. Frede & B. Inwood (Eds.), Language and learning: Philosophy of language in the Hellenistic Age (pp. –). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511482526.004
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511482526.004 [Google Scholar]
  55. Lupyan, G. & Casasanto, D.
    (2015) Meaningless words promote meaningful categorization. Language and Cognition, , –. 10.1017/langcog.2014.21
     https://doi.org/10.1017/langcog.2014.21 [Google Scholar]
  56. Maat, J.
    (2004) Philosophical languages in the seventeenth century: Dalgarno, Wilkins, Leibniz. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑007‑1036‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1036-8 [Google Scholar]
  57. Madzia, R., & Jung, M.
    (Eds.) (2016) Pragmatism and embodied cognitive science: from bodily intersubjectivity to symbolic articulation. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110480238
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110480238 [Google Scholar]
  58. Manetti, G.
    (1993) Theories of the sign in classical antiquity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Mates, B.
    (1989) The philosophy of Leibniz: Metaphysics and language. New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/0195059468.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/0195059468.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  60. Mehra, J. & Rechenberg, H.
    (1982–2001) The historical development of quantum theory. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4612‑5783‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5783-7 [Google Scholar]
  61. Merleau-Ponty, M.
    (1967) La structure du comportement [The structure of behavior]. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. (1976) Phénoménologie de la perception [Phenomenology of perception]. Paris: Gallimard. 10.14375/NP.9782070293377
     https://doi.org/10.14375/NP.9782070293377 [Google Scholar]
  63. (1979) Le Visible et l’invisible [The Visible and the Invisible]. Paris: Gallimard.
     [Google Scholar]
  64. Minsky, M.
    (1975) A framework for representing knowledge. InP. Winston (Ed.), The psychology of computer vision (pp. –). New York: McGraw-Hill.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. 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.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Ogden, Ch., & Richards, I.
    (1923) The meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & company, inc.
     [Google Scholar]
  67. Ohara, K.
    (2018) Relations between frames and constructions: A proposal from the Japanese FrameNet construction. InB. Lyngfelt, L. Borin, K. Ohara & T. T. Torrent (Eds.), Constructicography: Constructicon development across languages (pp. –). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.22.05oha
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.22.05oha [Google Scholar]
  68. Plotnitsky, A.
    (2006) Reading Bohr: Physics and philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Posner, M.
    (1986) Empirical studies of prototypes. InC. Craig (Ed.), Noun classes and categorization (pp. –). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.7.05pos
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.7.05pos [Google Scholar]
  70. Rosch, E.
    (1973) Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, , –. 10.1016/0010‑0285(73)90017‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 [Google Scholar]
  71. (1975) Reference points. Cognitive Psychology, , –. 10.1016/0010‑0285(75)90021‑3
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90021-3 [Google Scholar]
  72. (1975a) Cognitive Representations of Semantic Categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, , –. 10.1037/0096‑3445.104.3.192
     https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192 [Google Scholar]
  73. (1978) Principles of categorization. InE. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Еds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. –). Hillsdale, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates; New York: distributed by Halsted Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M. R. L., Johnson, Ch. R., Baker, C. F. & Scheffczyk, J.
    (2016) FrameNet II: Extended theory and practice. https://framenet2.icsi.berkeley.edu/docs/r1.7/book.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Ruthenford, D.
    (1995) Philosophy and language in Leibniz. InN. Jolley (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Leibniz (pp. –). Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Schmid, H.-J.
    (2020) The dynamics of the linguistic system: Usage, conventionalization, and entrenchment. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198814771.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  77. Sullivan, K.
    (2013) Frames and constructions in metaphoric language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cal.14
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cal.14 [Google Scholar]
  78. Taylor, J.
    (2015) Prototype effects in grammar. InE. Dabrowska & D. Divjak (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive linguistics (pp. –). Berlin & Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110292022‑028
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110292022-028 [Google Scholar]
  79. Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E.
    (1991) The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/6730.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/6730.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  80. Walker, D.
    (1972) Leibniz and language. Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, , –. 10.2307/750934
     https://doi.org/10.2307/750934 [Google Scholar]
  81. Weber, M.
    (1904) Die « Objectivität » sozialwissenschaftlicher und sozialpolitischer Erkenntnis [The ‘objectivity’ of sociological and socio-political knowledge]. Archiv fur Sozialwissenschaft und Socialpolitik, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Wierzbicka, A.
    (1980) Lingua mentalis: The semantics of natural language. Sydney: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. (1996) Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198700029.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198700029.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  84. (2015) Innate conceptual primitives manifested in the languages of the world and in infant cognition. InE. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts (pp. –). Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/9383.003.0023
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9383.003.0023 [Google Scholar]
  85. Yeh, W., & Barsalou, L.
    (2006) The situated nature of concepts. The American Journal of Psychology, (), –. 10.2307/20445349
     https://doi.org/10.2307/20445349 [Google Scholar]
  86. Ziemke, T., Zlatev, J., & Frank, R. M.
    (Eds.) (2007) Body, language, and mind. Vol. 1. Embodiment. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  87. Zlatev, J., & Blomberg, J.
    (2019) Norms of language: What kinds and where from? Insights from phenomenology. InA. Mäkilähde, V. Leppanen, & E. Itkonen (Eds.), Normativity in language and linguistics (pp. –). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.209.03zla
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.209.03zla [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rcl.00196.gle
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: frame semantics ; U‑semantics  ; T-semantics ; ad hoc СС & Ms theory ; meaning

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error