Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
Gärdenfors I 33
Dimension/Langacker/Gärdenfors (Langacker 1987, pp. 150-152): Thesis: many domains (abstract and basic ones) are dimensional, but he does not formulate this as a criterion for a domain. He differentiates
(i) dimensional
(ii) meronomic relations (part-whole relations), e.g. finger-hand-arm-body.
ClausnerVsLangacker/CroftVsLangacker: (Clausner and Croft 1999, p. 6): the semantic relation conceptual domain is actually a part-whole relation (i.e., meronomic).
I 34
GärdenforsVsClausner/GärdenforsVsCroft: that is another sense of "dimensional": concepts correspond to regions of dimensional domains. This is not a normal "part-whole relation".
>Concepts, >Domains/Gärdenfors, >Domains/Langacker, >Part-of-Relation, >Mereology.


1. R. W. Langacker (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol I). Stanford, CA: Stanford Universtity Press.
2. Clausner, T. C. / Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 1-31.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.