从 "后古典 "视角看待意义

IF 0.6 4区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
V. Glebkin
{"title":"从 \"后古典 \"视角看待意义","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

近年来,一些学者对意义概念及其相关方法论在现代词汇语义学中的生产力表示怀疑。本文旨在通过将其与经典物理学向量子物理学的过渡过程进行比较来审视当前的形势。文章在特别章节中简要分析了挑战经典解释的经验数据,随后的章节则讨论了提出新方法论框架的替代理论。丹尼尔-卡萨桑托(Daniel Casasanto)及其同事提出的СС & Ms特设理论受到了特别关注,但汉斯-约格-施密德(Hans-Jörg Schmid)的 "巩固与常规化模型"(Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model)和乔丹-兹拉特夫(Jordan Zlatev)及其同事提出的 "动机与沉淀模型"(Motivation & Sedimentation Model)也有所涉及。最后一节将重新讨论查尔斯-菲尔莫尔(Charles Fillmore)提出的框架语义学,重点是他的 "U-语义学 "和 "T-语义学 "二分法。分析菲尔莫尔观点的一个重要结果是,菲尔莫尔解释中的框架概念可以替代经典解释中的意义概念。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信