Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-04T06:41:17.631Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The conceptual structure of deontic meaning: A model based on geometrical principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2014

Paul Chilton
Paul Chilton*
Affiliation:
Lancaster University
*
Correspondence addresses: Paul Chilton, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA2 4YT, UK. E-mail: p.chilton@lancaster.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Deontic meanings have frequently been considered in relation to epistemic meanings and the present paper introduces a novel framework for investigating this relationship. The paper first introduces the basic ideas in Deictic Space Theory (DST), illustrating the geometrical elements involved with respect to counterfactual conceptualisations. This framework is then used to explore deontic conceptualisations in relation to epistemic conceptualisations. Following the implications of the geometrical structure logic of DST, epistemic concepts are taken as fundamental and as presupposed in deontic meanings. It is argued that counterfactuality, which can be modelled as a geometrical reflection transformation, is crucial to the modelling of the conceptual space of obligation concepts expressed in English modal verbs. It is further argued that a second-order reflection transformation can model permission concepts. Deontic ‘force’ is modelled in a natural way as force vectors, an already assumed ingredient of DST's geometrical framework. Finally the paper considers ways in which this framework does and does not run counter to existing claims about deontic and epistemic meaning in Cognitive Semantics.

Keywords

deonticepistemicgeometrymodalitytransformationsreflexionvectorcounterfactualcoordinatemetarepresentatonforce dynamicspermissionobligation
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 191 - 220
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2010

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

Chilton, P. 2005. Vectors, viewpoint and viewpoint shift: Toward a discourse space theory. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3. 78–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chilton, P. 2007. Geometrical concepts at the interface of formal and cognitive models: Aktionsart, aspect and the English progressive. Pragmatics and Cognition 15(1). 91–114.Google Scholar
Chilton, P. 2010. From mind to grammar: Coordinate systems, prepositions, constructions. In Evans, V. and Chilton, P. (eds.), Language, cognition and space. London: Equinox. pp. 499–514.Google Scholar
Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J.. 2000. Consider the source: The evolution of adaptations for decoupling and metarepresentation. In Sperber, D. (ed.), Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G. 1994. Mental spaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frawley, W. 1992. Linguistic semantics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Gärdenfors, P. 2000. Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurford, J. 2007. The origins of meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar, Volume 2. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. 2003. Space in language and cognition: Explorations in cognitive diversity. Cambridge: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Volume 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
O'Keefe, J. 1996. The spatial prepositions in English, vector grammar, and the cognitive map theory. In Bloom, P.et al. (eds.), Language and space. MIT Press. pp. 277–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, F. R. 1986. Mood and modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Papafragou, A. 1998. The acquisition of modality: Implications for theories of semantic. Mind and Language 13(3). 370–399.Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (editor) (2000) Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sweetser, E. 1990. From etymology to pragmatic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1985. Force dynamics in language and thought. Chicago Linguistics Society 21, Part 2: Parasession on Causatives and Agentivity. 293–337.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 1988. Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science 12. 49–100.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2001. Force dynamics in language and cognition. In Talmy, L., Toward a cognitive semantics. Volume 1: Concept structuring systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press (revised version of Talmy 1988). pp. 409–470.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. 1989. On the rise of epistemic meanings in English: An example of subjectification in semantic change. Language 57. 33–65.Google Scholar
Winter, S. & Gärdenfors, P.. 1995. Linguistic modality as expressions of social power. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 18. 137–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolff, P. & Zettergren, M.. 2002. A vector model of causal meaning. In Gray, W. D. & Schunn, C. D. (eds.), Proceedings of the 24th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 944–949. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Zwarts, J. 1997. Vectors as relative positions: A compositional semantics of modified PPs. Journal of Semantics 14. 57–86.Google Scholar