Conceptual semantics

Urpo Nikanne
Table of contents

The research topic of conceptual semantics is the human cognitive system, with a special focus on language. The approach has been put forward by Ray Jackendoff (1972, 1983, 1990, 1997). The ultimate goal of conceptual semantics is an integrated theory of the human mind. The theory started out from generative linguistics, and therefore the model of the research topic is based on symbolic formalism, and language plays a central role in the work done within the approach.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price.

References

Carlson, L.A. & Van Der Zee, E.
(eds.) 2005 Functional features in language and space: Insights from perception, categorization and development. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Chomsky, N
1957 Syntactic structures. Mouton deGruyter. Google Scholar
1965 Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press. Google Scholar
1970 Remarks on nominalizations. In R. Jacobs & P. Rosenbaum (eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar: 184–221. Blaisdell. Google Scholar
Croft, W
2001 Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fillmore, C.J
1968 The case for case. In E. Bach & R. Harms (eds), Universals in Linguistic Theory: 1–88. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J. & P. Kay
1996 Construction grammar. CSLI Lecture Notes 5, Linguistics X 20. University of California at Berkeley. Google Scholar
Fillmore, C.J., P. Kay & M.C. O’connor
1988 let alone. Language 64: 501–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J
1983 The modularity of mind. MIT Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fried, M. & J.-O. Östman
2004 Construction grammar: A thumbnail sketch. In M. Fried & J-O. Östman (eds.), Construction Grammar in a Cross-Language Perspective: 11–86. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A
1995 Constructions. University of Chicago Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R
1972 Semantic interpretation in generative grammar. MIT Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1976 Toward an explanatory semantic representation. Linguistic Inquiry 7(1): 89–150. Google Scholar
1978 Grammar as evidence for conceptual structure. In M. Halle J. Bresnan & G. Miller (eds.), Linguistic theory and psychological reality: 201–228. MIT Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1983 Semantics and cognition. MIT Press. Google Scholar
1987 The status of thematic relations in linguistic theory. Linguistic Inquiry 18(3): 369–411. Google Scholar
1990 Semantic structures. MIT Press. Google Scholar
1991 Cognition 41: 9-45. Reprinted in B. Levin & S. Pinker (eds.) 1992. Lexical and conceptual semantics: 9–45.. Blackwell.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R
1992 Languages of the Mind. Bradford/MIT Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
1996 The architecture of the linguistic-spatial interface. In P. Bloom M. Peterson, L. Nadel & M. Garrett (eds.), Language and Space: 1–30. MIT Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R.
1997 The architecture of the language faculty. MIT Press. Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. & P. Culicover
2005 Simpler syntax. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. & B. Landau
1991 Spatial language and spatial cognition. In D.J. Napoli & J. Kegl (eds.) Bridges Between Psychology and Language: A Swarthmore Festschrift for Lila Gleitman: 144–169Erlbaum. (Revised version in Jackendoff ,Languages of the Mind.)Google Scholar
Kay, P
1995 Construction grammar. In J. Verschueren, J-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Nikanne, U
1990 Zones and tiers: A study of thematic structure. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Studia Fennica Linguistica 35 . Google Scholar
1995a Action tier formation and argument linking. Studia Linguistica 49: 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995b Interpretive semantics. In J. Verscheuren , J.-O. Östman & J. Blommaert (eds.), Handbook of Pragmatics: Manual: 338–343. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
1997a Lexical conceptual structure and syntactic arguments. SKY 1997 . 81–118.
1997b Suomen infiniittisten adjunktien temporaalinen tulkinta. Virittäjä 3: 338–357. Google Scholar
1997c Locative case adjuncts in Finnish: Notes on syntactico-semantic interface. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 20: 155–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002.Kerrokset ja kytkennät [‘Tiers and links’]: http://​www​.abo​.fi​/fak​/hf​/fin​/kurssit​/KONSEM/ (Downloaded: 4 May 2008.)
2005 Constructions in conceptual semantics. In J.-O. Östman & M. Fried (eds.): 191–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
ÖstmanJ.-O & M. Fried
(eds.) 2005 Construction grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions. John Benjamins. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Pörn, M.
2005 Suomen tunnekausatiiviverbit ja niiden lausemaiset täydennykset. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura. Google Scholar
Rummelhart, D. & J. Mcclelland
1986 Parallel distributed processing. MIT Press. Google Scholar
Van Der Zee, E.
1996 Spatial knowledge and spatial language. ISOR-Utrecht. Google Scholar
Van Der Zee, E. & U. Nikanne
(eds.) 2000 Cognitive interfaces. Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Van Der Zee, E. & J. Slack
(eds) 2003 Representing direction in language and space. Oxford University Press. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar