Meaning in Language and Literature, 4EN707 Meaning in Language, Lecture 2: Theories Helena Frännhag Autumn 2013

Main approaches Referential (denotational) theories Representative theories

The referential/denotational view There is an objective, external reality of some kind, in which categories, properties and relations exist independently of human consciousness There is an objective, external reality of some kind, in which categories, properties and relations exist independently of human consciousness There is objective, absolute truth, consisting in the match between symbols and phenomena in the external reality There is objective, absolute truth, consisting in the match between symbols and phenomena in the external reality Meaning arises from the truth-conditional relation between symbols and phenomena in the external reality Meaning arises from the truth-conditional relation between symbols and phenomena in the external reality

Referential theories Russellianism (e.g. Russel, 1905; McKay, 1981; Braun, 1998, 2000) Montague grammar (e.g. Montague, 1974; Rodman 1972; Partee, 1975, 2004) Davidsonian semantics (e.g. Davidson, 1967; Taylor, 1998; Kolbel, 2001)

Formal semantics gets at meaning by stating the truth conditions for propositions gets at meaning by stating the truth conditions for propositions grounds meaning in objective reality/mathematical models (human- independent) grounds meaning in objective reality/mathematical models (human- independent) uses expressions from logic as metalanguage uses expressions from logic as metalanguage

Formal semantics; pros Established, economic and clear metalanguage Established, economic and clear metalanguage Avoids circularity (since it’s denotational) Avoids circularity (since it’s denotational) Points up relation between human language and other animals’ sign systems (again: being denotational) Points up relation between human language and other animals’ sign systems (again: being denotational)

Formal semantics; cons Applicable only to statements Applicable only to statements Fails to account for subjectivity/speaker attitude (though cf. the idea of possible worlds; e.g. Lewis, 1973, 1986; Kripke, 1980) Fails to account for subjectivity/speaker attitude (though cf. the idea of possible worlds; e.g. Lewis, 1973, 1986; Kripke, 1980) Basically impossible to understand Basically impossible to understand

The representational view There is no objective, external reality; no ’God’s eye’s view’ (cf. Johnson 1987) There is no objective, external reality; no ’God’s eye’s view’ (cf. Johnson 1987) Meaning arises from the relationship between linguistic signs and mental representations Meaning arises from the relationship between linguistic signs and mental representations

The Classical view Clearly delimited concepts Clearly delimited concepts Necessary and sufficient features Necessary and sufficient features

Problems… E.g Rigidity Rigidity Failure to account for prototypicality effects Failure to account for prototypicality effects Poor representation Poor representation

Reaction Prototype theory ( ) (e.g. Rosch 1973, 1975; Rosch & Mervis 1975, Rosch et al 1976, Hampton 1979, Smith and Medin, Barsalou 1992 ) Frame semantics (e.g. Fillmore 1975, 1985)

Prototype theory Fuzzy rather than rigid concepts Fuzzy rather than rigid concepts Degrees of prototypicality; features, but no limitation to necessary and sufficient ones Degrees of prototypicality; features, but no limitation to necessary and sufficient ones

Prototype theory Pros -got round the problem of where to draw the line -explained prototypicality effects Cons -rigid in terms of what constitutes a prototype (no context-sensitivity) -still poor representation (only features)

Frame semantics The meaning of a linguistic item depends on elaborate theories about the world – frames – formed from experience and the culture we live in.

Later representational theories Cognitive semantic theories (e.g. Langacker 1987; Clausner & Croft 1999; Croft 2000). Generative semantic theories (e.g. Jackendoff, 1983, 1990, 2002; Pustejovsky 1995; Pustejovsky, Bouillon & Isahara 2012 )

Some major differences Meaning representation - Componential vs domain based - Innate vs usage-based - Modular vs encyclopaedic Meaning creation - Compositional/computational vs dynamic construal

Summing up There are two main approaches to meaning: the denotational and the representative approach There are two main approaches to meaning: the denotational and the representative approach Referential/denotational approaches focus on external reality and truth-conditions; formal semantic theories Referential/denotational approaches focus on external reality and truth-conditions; formal semantic theories Representational approaches focus on the human mind and mental representation; generative and cognitive theories Representational approaches focus on the human mind and mental representation; generative and cognitive theories