Why do we need the particle “not”: evolution of semantic structures and propositional attitudes
The article investigates the problem of the universally significant meaning of communicative messages. This framework problem implies answering more specific questions — is there a reality (correlative to the meaning of judgments) that would guarantee the universality of the meanings of linguistic...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University
2022-05-01
|
| Series: | Слово.ру: балтийский акцент |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/5064/35361/ |
| _version_ | 1811345201001660416 |
|---|---|
| author | Raisa E. Barash Alexander Yu. Antonovskiy |
| author_facet | Raisa E. Barash Alexander Yu. Antonovskiy |
| author_sort | Raisa E. Barash |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The article investigates the problem of the universally significant meaning of communicative messages. This framework problem implies answering more specific questions — is there a reality (correlative to the meaning of judgments) that would guarantee the universality of the meanings of linguistic expressions; is there a reality behind moralizing or judgments of taste that ensures agreement on value judgments if they become the content of communication. What provides the typical identity of mental states (thoughts, perceptions, representations, sensations) in different individuals, when these states are thematized in communication? Is there a typical correlation behind them in reality, which ensures the identity of mental states? The article posits that propositional attitudes act as “carriers” or frameworks of typical communicative environments, indirect contexts in which propositional content are localized as the main — intralingual — evolutionary mechanism that stabilizes key communicative meanings. Indirect contexts produced in the language or the operators “I know that...”, “I hope that...”, “I remember that...”, “I want that…”, “I imagine that...” protect sentences from negation and make it possible to reproduce universally significant meanings.
|
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T19:59:27Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b79b3702f5e34ec7ae7179c83a6e7a27 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2225-5346 2686-8989 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T19:59:27Z |
| publishDate | 2022-05-01 |
| publisher | Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Слово.ру: балтийский акцент |
| spelling | doaj.art-b79b3702f5e34ec7ae7179c83a6e7a272022-12-22T02:32:14ZengImmanuel Kant Baltic Federal UniversityСлово.ру: балтийский акцент2225-53462686-89892022-05-011329912010.5922/2225-5346-2022-2-5Why do we need the particle “not”: evolution of semantic structures and propositional attitudesRaisa E. Barash0Alexander Yu. Antonovskiy1Institute of Sociology of the Federal Scientific Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Russian Society for the History and Philosophy of ScienceRussian Academy of Sciences; Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityThe article investigates the problem of the universally significant meaning of communicative messages. This framework problem implies answering more specific questions — is there a reality (correlative to the meaning of judgments) that would guarantee the universality of the meanings of linguistic expressions; is there a reality behind moralizing or judgments of taste that ensures agreement on value judgments if they become the content of communication. What provides the typical identity of mental states (thoughts, perceptions, representations, sensations) in different individuals, when these states are thematized in communication? Is there a typical correlation behind them in reality, which ensures the identity of mental states? The article posits that propositional attitudes act as “carriers” or frameworks of typical communicative environments, indirect contexts in which propositional content are localized as the main — intralingual — evolutionary mechanism that stabilizes key communicative meanings. Indirect contexts produced in the language or the operators “I know that...”, “I hope that...”, “I remember that...”, “I want that…”, “I imagine that...” protect sentences from negation and make it possible to reproduce universally significant meanings. https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/5064/35361/semanticsevolution of semanticsnegationsystem-communicative theorylanguage |
| spellingShingle | Raisa E. Barash Alexander Yu. Antonovskiy Why do we need the particle “not”: evolution of semantic structures and propositional attitudes Слово.ру: балтийский акцент semantics evolution of semantics negation system-communicative theory language |
| title | Why do we need the particle “not”: evolution of semantic structures and propositional attitudes |
| title_full | Why do we need the particle “not”: evolution of semantic structures and propositional attitudes |
| title_fullStr | Why do we need the particle “not”: evolution of semantic structures and propositional attitudes |
| title_full_unstemmed | Why do we need the particle “not”: evolution of semantic structures and propositional attitudes |
| title_short | Why do we need the particle “not”: evolution of semantic structures and propositional attitudes |
| title_sort | why do we need the particle not evolution of semantic structures and propositional attitudes |
| topic | semantics evolution of semantics negation system-communicative theory language |
| url | https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/5064/35361/ |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT raisaebarash whydoweneedtheparticlenotevolutionofsemanticstructuresandpropositionalattitudes AT alexanderyuantonovskiy whydoweneedtheparticlenotevolutionofsemanticstructuresandpropositionalattitudes |