Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T07:09:15.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic Meaning: Cognition, Interaction and the Real World1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Peter Harder
Peter Harder
Affiliation:
Department of English, University of Copenhagen, Njalsgade 84, DK-2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
Get access

Abstract

This article deals with the basic issues of the nature of linguistic meaning and the place of semantics in linguistic theory. First, there is a discussion of the implications for semantics of the research paradigm based on formal simulation, concluding that it involves a risk of misrepresenting the place of semantics in linguistics. Second, there is a discussion of the truth-conditional approach, which, although in one important respect it involves a more adequate conception of the role of semantics in language theory, is seen as misrepresenting linguistic meaning in a way that has been pointed out within the cognitive approach to semantics. Third, however, it is argued that the cognitive approach does not sufficiently account for the external anchoring of meaning. Fourth, it is argued that meaning ‘outside the head’ must be understood as basically interactive. A crucial element in the view argued here is the distinction between linguistic, potential meaning, which functions as instructions to the addressee, and actual meaning or ‘message’, which the addressee works out as part of the actual process of interpretation. Within such a picture, the importance of both cognition and truth can be accounted for, and both aspects are seen as dependent on the fundamental embeddedness of language in a shared social universe.

Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , December 1991 , pp. 119 - 140
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allwood, J. 1981. On the Distinctions between Semantics and Pragmatics. In Klein, W. & Levelt, W. (eds.), Crossing the Boundaries in Linguistics. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 177–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allwood, J. 1988. Om det svenska systemet för språklig återkoppling. In Linell, P. et al. (eds.), 16:e sammankomsten för svenskans beskrivning, Dept. of Communication, University of Linköping, pp. 1–19.Google Scholar
Austin, J.L. 1962. How To Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, E. 1989. Informal Lectures on Formal Semantics. SUNY Press: Albany.Google Scholar
Berger, P. & Luckmann, P. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Chage, W.L. 1968. Meaning and the Structure of Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Davies, J.M.D. & Isard, S. 1972. Utterances as Programs. In Michie, D. & Meltzer, B.Machine Intelligence 7. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, pp. 325–339.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1985. Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di semantica VI, pp. 222–254.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. 1987. Psychosemantics: the Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J.A. & Pylyshyn, Z. 1988. Connectionism and Cognitive Architecture: a Critical Analysis. Cognition 28, 2–71.Google Scholar
Frege, G. 1967. The Thought: A Logical Inquiry. In Strawson, P. F. (ed.), Philosophical Logic. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. 1985. The Mind's New Science. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gazdar, G. 1980. Pragmatics and Logical Form. Journal of Pragmatics 4, 1–13.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and Conversation. In Cole, P & Norgan, J. (eds.), Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.Google Scholar
Harder, P. 1990a. Tense, Semantics and Layered Syntax. In Nuyts, J., Bolkestein, A. M. & Vet, C. (eds.), Layers and Levels of Representation in Language Theory. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins, pp. 139–163.Google Scholar
Harder, P. (1990b). The Semantics and Pragmatics of Reference. Pragmatics and Its Manifestations in Language (Copenhagen Studies in Language 13). Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.Google Scholar
Harder, P. & Kock, C. 1976. The Theory of Presupposition Failure (Travaux du cercie linguistique de Copenhague XVIII), København: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1987. Consciousness and the Computational Mind. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P.N. 1977. Procedural Semantics. Cognition 5, 189–214.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. 1975. Presupposition and the Delimination of Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kempson, R. 1986. Ambiguity and the Semantics-Pragmatics Distinction. In Travis, C. (ed.), Meaning and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell, ch. 3.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R.W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G.N. 1981. Semantics. 2nd ed.London: Longman.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1972. General Semantics. In Davidson, D. & Harman, G. (eds.), Semantics of Natural Language. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 169–218.Google Scholar
Marr, D. 1982. Vision: A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 1989. Mental Content. Oxford: Basill Blackwell.Google Scholar
Newell, A. & Simon, H.A. 1976. Computer Science as an Empirical Inquiry: Symbols and Search, Communications of the ACM 19:3, 113–126.Google Scholar
Putnam, H. 1975. The Meaning of Meaning. In Philosophical Papers, vol. 2, Mind, Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 215–271.Google Scholar
Saussure, F. d. 1915. Cours de linguistique générale. 1968 edition, Paris: Payot.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. 1969. Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J.R. 1983. Intentionality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. 1986. Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Stuart, Mill J. 1843. A System of Logic. Quoted from the Longman edition 1970. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Thrane, T. in Press. The fallacy of Descriptivism. In Sørensen, F. (ed.), Topics in Semantic Interpretation. Copenhagen: Samfundslitteratur.Google Scholar
White, G. 1789. The Natural History of Selborne. 1989 edition, London: Wordsworth.Google Scholar
Williams, R. 1976. Keywords. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
Winograd, T. 1976. Toward a Procedural Understanding of Semantics. Revue internationale de philosophie 3, 117–118, 260–303.Google Scholar