What’s behind meaning?
The paper addresses the main questions to be dealt with by any semantic theory which is committed to provide an explanation of how meaning is possible. On one side the paper argues that the resources provided by the development of mathematical logic, theoretical computer science, cognitive psycholog...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Tabriz, Faculty of Literature and Forigen Languages
2017-12-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Philosophical Investigations |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_7084_ba3b2e29b47667049d396b89f779ac1c.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797699808026165248 |
|---|---|
| author | Alberto Peruzzi |
| author_facet | Alberto Peruzzi |
| author_sort | Alberto Peruzzi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The paper addresses the main questions to be dealt with by any semantic theory which is committed to provide an explanation of how meaning is possible. On one side the paper argues that the resources provided by the development of mathematical logic, theoretical computer science, cognitive psychology, and general linguistics in the 20th Century, however indispensable to investigate the structure of language, rely on the existence of end products in the morphogenesis of meaning. On the other, the paper argues that philosophy of language, which, either in the analytic or the structuralist or the hermeneutical tradition, made little use of such resources (when they are not simply rejected). Left the main question unanswered. Though phenomenology intended to focus on the constitutive process, it ended up mostly with philology. Cognitive semantics paved the way to focus on patterns of bodily interaction within the natural environment out of which basic schemes emerge and are metaphorically “lifted” to any universe of discourse. The explanatory commitment is thus endorsed through two hypotheses: (1) these schemes, of topological and kinaesthetic structure, determine the range of forms of atomic sentences of any natural language, and (2) the category-theoretic notion of universality allows for a proper analysis of how such schemes are “lifted”. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T04:13:10Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-af09bef441034930a246375000b5caff |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2251-7960 2423-4419 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T04:13:10Z |
| publishDate | 2017-12-01 |
| publisher | University of Tabriz, Faculty of Literature and Forigen Languages |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Philosophical Investigations |
| spelling | doaj.art-af09bef441034930a246375000b5caff2023-09-03T10:51:56ZengUniversity of Tabriz, Faculty of Literature and Forigen LanguagesJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-79602423-44192017-12-0111211191457084What’s behind meaning?Alberto Peruzzi0Professor of Theoretical Philosophy, University of Florence, ItalyThe paper addresses the main questions to be dealt with by any semantic theory which is committed to provide an explanation of how meaning is possible. On one side the paper argues that the resources provided by the development of mathematical logic, theoretical computer science, cognitive psychology, and general linguistics in the 20th Century, however indispensable to investigate the structure of language, rely on the existence of end products in the morphogenesis of meaning. On the other, the paper argues that philosophy of language, which, either in the analytic or the structuralist or the hermeneutical tradition, made little use of such resources (when they are not simply rejected). Left the main question unanswered. Though phenomenology intended to focus on the constitutive process, it ended up mostly with philology. Cognitive semantics paved the way to focus on patterns of bodily interaction within the natural environment out of which basic schemes emerge and are metaphorically “lifted” to any universe of discourse. The explanatory commitment is thus endorsed through two hypotheses: (1) these schemes, of topological and kinaesthetic structure, determine the range of forms of atomic sentences of any natural language, and (2) the category-theoretic notion of universality allows for a proper analysis of how such schemes are “lifted”.http://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_7084_ba3b2e29b47667049d396b89f779ac1c.pdfCognitive SemanticsPhenomenologyCognitive SemanticsNaturalised epistemologyEmbodied MindEmergenceMetaphor SchemesCategory Theoryphenomenology |
| spellingShingle | Alberto Peruzzi What’s behind meaning? Journal of Philosophical Investigations Cognitive Semantics PhenomenologyCognitive Semantics Naturalised epistemology Embodied Mind Emergence Metaphor Schemes Category Theory phenomenology |
| title | What’s behind meaning? |
| title_full | What’s behind meaning? |
| title_fullStr | What’s behind meaning? |
| title_full_unstemmed | What’s behind meaning? |
| title_short | What’s behind meaning? |
| title_sort | what s behind meaning |
| topic | Cognitive Semantics PhenomenologyCognitive Semantics Naturalised epistemology Embodied Mind Emergence Metaphor Schemes Category Theory phenomenology |
| url | http://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_7084_ba3b2e29b47667049d396b89f779ac1c.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT albertoperuzzi whatsbehindmeaning |