The 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.
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
- Author queries
-
References