{"title":"The view of meaning from a “postclassical” perspective","authors":"V. Glebkin","doi":"10.1075/rcl.00196.gle","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In recent years, a number of scholars have expressed doubts about the productivity of the concept of\n meaning and its associated methodology for modern lexical semantics. This article aims to examine the current\n situation by comparing it with the process of transition from classical to quantum physics. Empirical data that challenge\n classical interpretations are briefly analyzed in a special section, whilst the subsequent sections address alternative theories\n that propose new methodological frameworks. Particular attention is paid to the ad hoc СС & Ms theory developed by Daniel\n Casasanto and colleagues, though Hans-Jörg Schmid’s Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model and the Motivation &\n Sedimentation Model formulated by Jordan Zlatev and colleagues are also touched upon. In the final section, frame semantics, as\n presented by Charles Fillmore, is revisited, with a focus on his dichotomy of U-semantics and T-semantics. A significant result of\n the analysis of Fillmore’s perspectives is the assertion that the concept of frame in Fillmore’s construal can serve as\n an alternative to the concept of meaning in its classical interpretation.","PeriodicalId":51932,"journal":{"name":"Review of Cognitive Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Cognitive Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/rcl.00196.gle","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.