Towards a represenation-based theory of meaning (original) (raw)
Related papers
Abstract Meaning has been the center of debates in the study of language for centuries. From classical Greek to Cognitive Linguistics. From been partially ignored by modern linguists like Bloomfield, Chomsky, and many others, to been “empirically” studied by Cognitive Linguists. The study of meaning still remain open ended in its conclusions. The open-endedness of the study of meaning has left many questions in its wake than it sets out to answer. That is one of the reasons why Bloomfield called it “weak” and Chomsky ignored it in his “Generative Grammar”. It is as a result of this weak background that Cognitive Linguistics emerged. From its traditional approach (Semantics) to its modern approach (Cognitive Linguistics), the study of meaning is yet to be boldly called an empirical study of language. This article aims at highlighting the weakness of Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics as an introduction to both fields (Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics). This is because both fields are obsessed with meaning in language. Furthermore, because Cognitive Linguistics is an advanced study of Semantics, this article will focus on its weaknesses to highlight the weakness of the study of meaning in general. From there, solutions to some of the problems will be recommended.
Meaning has been the center of debates in the study language for centuries
Meaning has been the center of debates in the study of language for centuries. From classical Greek to Cognitive Linguistics. From been partially ignored by modern linguists like Bloomfield, Chomsky, and many others, to been "empirically" studied by Cognitive Linguists. The study of meaning still remain open ended in its conclusions. The open-endedness of the study of meaning has left many questions in its wake than it sets out to answer. That is one of the reasons why Bloomfield called it "weak" and Chomsky ignored it in his "Generative Grammar". It is as a result of this weak background that Cognitive Linguistics emerged. From its traditional approach (Semantics) to its modern approach (Cognitive Linguistics), the study of meaning is yet to be boldly called an empirical study of language. This article aims at highlighting the weakness of Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics as an introduction to both fields (Semantics and Cognitive Linguistics). This is because both fields are obsessed with meaning in language. Furthermore, because Cognitive Linguistics is an advanced study of Semantics, this article will focus on its weaknesses to highlight the weakness of the study of meaning in general. From there, solutions to some of the problems will be recommended.
Contributions of Cognitive Grammar to the history of the concept of meaning
Beiträge zur Geschichte der Sprachwissenschaft, 2020
This text intends to systematize the studies in the history of the concepts of meaning in order to understand the evolution of this linguistic topic, over the last decades, within the framework of cognitive linguistics. The meaning of words, sentences and texts is the object of study of semantics, a discipline of linguistics that focuses on the meaning of linguistic expressions, as well as on the relations of meaning that these expressions celebrate among each other and with the world. The semantic properties of natural languages can be studied at all linguistic levels. As a consequence of the growing awareness of the pragmatic dimension of language and of the dissolution of traditional oppositions among syntax, semantics and lexicon in linguistics, we realize that, in the second half of the twentieth century, there was a theoretical and methodological renewal and the creation of new disciplinary areas. In the 1980s, a link was established among linguistics, computer science and cognitive psychology. In this text, we highlight the contribution of all these areas to the concept of “meaning”, especially that of cognitive grammar, which identifies and represents the conceptual structures that are conventionalized in grammatical constructions, transferring our conceptual perception of the world to meaning.
This paper examines meaning in language. It is therefore a study in semantics. Semantics is the study of meaning in terms of the linguistics. Semantics begins from the stopping point of syntax and ends from where pragmatics begins. A separate discipline in the study of language, semantics has existed for decades. The term semantics was first used by Breal in 1987 and it does not suggest that there had never been speculations about the nature of meaning (Ogbulogo (2005). Words, phrases and sentences are used to convey messages in natural languages. Semantics is the study of meaning systems in language. If meaning is a system, then language is systematic in nature. In this paper, we investigate the nature of meaning to locate the significance of semantics in contemporary linguistics. Frege, cited in Sandt (1988:1) rightly notes that “... [If ] anything is asserted there is always an obvious presupposition that the simple or compound proper names used have reference.” Hinging on different submissions in the literature, we conclude that meaning is: socio-cultural, dynamic, grammar-driven, conventional, representative (referential), individualistic (non-conventional) and is not exhaustive.
Meaning in Language: A Contemporary Philosophical Review
Linguistic, English Education and Art (LEEA) Journal
This research aims to describe the position of meaning in language in the realm of philosophy; describes the thoughts and focus of language philosophy on meaning in language in the 20th century; and describes the impact of philosophy on research in contemporary linguistics. Literature study and text analysis methods were carried out to elaborate on the relationship between language and philosophy, the thoughts and focus of the philosophy of language, as well as the implications of the philosophy of language for contemporary linguistics research. There are four stages of activity in this research, namely (1) preparing the tools needed; (2) preparing a working bibliography; (3) arranging working time; and (4) reading and taking notes on research materials. The data collected is information and facts from various scientific works on the contemporary philosophy of language & linguistics. The data analysis phase was carried out when recording the information and facts and grouping them b...
Language, Giving-the-Meaning and Interpretation
Entelekya Logico-Metaphysical Review, 2021
The subject that we have tried to mention in this article mainly intensifies on the meta-ontological or metaphysical field. Although we cannot know the real existence of objects, at least, we say something that cannot be expressed. Then, we should not ignore that our judgments belonging to the unknown field can be interpreted, more or less, on account of the relation to the area of the facts we know them. It is clear that trying to get the meaning of the world in itself or noumenon through the image of the concrete world is useless. Nevertheless, this condition does not mean that it should not make inquiries concerning the noumenon world and discontinue thinking about what the field of existence in itself is. Interpretations on this field of existence in itself cannot be expressed by mere knowledge of the actual area or the real notions. Because, in our image of the real world, there seems a situation that continually changes and which converts its meaning in each change.