I 176
Sentences/Semantics/Gärdenfors: we should not analyze sentences or sentence meanings with propositions as sets of sentences, because sentence meaning is too context-dependent. Between sentences and propositions there is therefore no semantic mapping.
Solution/Gärdenfors: sentences should be analyzed with Conceptual Spaces.
---
I 177
At first, it is not so obvious why we should express ourselves in sentences.
GärdenforsVsFrege: his answer to the fact that thoughts are sentences is not enough because one does not know how thoughts could be identified in a language-independent manner.
Solution/Gärdenfors: Thesis: sentences express events. In addition, we should focus on utterances instead of sentences. Utterances are parts of communication. The sentence meaning can be changed here.
Attention: also plays a role in how events are represented. There are other aspects: see Croft & Wood (2000
(1), Chapter 3); Langacker (2008
(2), chapter 3): perspective, categorization.
Event/Gärdenfors: Thesis: the construction of an event contains at least one vector (force vector or result vector) and an object.
---
I 178
Sentence/Gärdenfors: Thesis on sentences: a (declarative) sentence typically expresses the construction of an event.
Conclusion/(s): Gärdenfors assumes changing instead of rigid meanings because he considers sentences within communications in which the meanings can change. His approach with vectors in conceptual spaces contributes to this dynamic situation rather than propositions, which are in a rigid relation to sentences. Therefore, he also rejects mapping relationships such as semantic mapping.
1. Croft, W., & Wood, E. J. (2000). Construal operations in linguistics and artificial intelligence. In. L. Albertazzi (ed.) Meaning and cognition: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 51-78). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
2. Langacker (2008): Langacker, R. W. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford
