Psychology Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Domain: In model theory a set of defined objects, for which a model is satisfiable. In logic a set of objects that can be related to statements._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Peter Gärdenfors on Domains - Dictionary of Arguments
I 22 Domain/Definition Semantic Domain/Gärdenfors: we use the concepts of integral and separable dimensions from cognitive psychology (according to Garner, 1974; Maddox, 1992; Melara, 1992; Kemler Nelson, 1993). (1)(2)(3)(4) Definition integral quality dimension: here one cannot assign a value to a dimension without assigning a value to another dimension. E.g. color hue: cannot be specified without specifying a color saturation. Definition separable quality dimension: here one dimension can be specified independently of others. E.g. size. Definition Domain/Gärdenfors: is a set of integral dimensions, which can be separated from all other dimensions. Many domains consist of only one dimension: e.g. temperature, weight. --- I 23 Gärdenfors thesis: the distribution of cognitive representations to domains is reflected in semantics. --- I 30 Domain/Gärdenfors: dimensions of properties do not usually occur alone, but are grouped together in domains (e.g. colors). Thesis: Learning (language acquisition) is organized by domains. >Language acquisition/Gärdenfors, >Learning/Gärdenfors. --- I 31 Cognitive linguistics/Cognitive semantics/Gärdenfors: their representatives use the concept of the domain that originates from Gestalt psychology (central terms: figure and background). See also: Langacker (2008, p. 44) (5), Clausner and Croft (1999, p.1)(6) Word: its semantic structure consists then of the concept (figure) and the assumed structure of the domain(background). GärdenforsVsLangacker: its concept of the configurable domain should be viewed better than meronomic information about parts and whole. > Domain/Langacker. --- I 33 Higher-level domains/Gärdenfors: if we accept them, we can assume terms in one domain as configurational, but in a different domain as described locally. Solution/Gärdenfors: a hierarchy of domains. --- I 37 Domain/Conceptual domain/Conceptual space/Qualities/Properties/Gärdenfors: a domain that is represented as a coordination system (see forms/Gärdnefors, conceptual space/Gärdenfors) can be used for the representation of general patterns and configurations (Marr and Nishihara, 1978).(7) Clausner and Croft (p.9) argue that intervals and chords are such configurational patterns. --- I 38 Family relationships/Gärdenfors: can also be represented in such spaces (Zwart 2010a) (8) - so not as a family tree, but as a two-dimensional surface. --- I 73 Domain/semantic domains/Gärdenfors: central advantage of semantic domains: sharing of meanings in different domains makes new forms of cooperation possible. 1. Garner, W. R. (1974). The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD. 2. Maddox, W. T. (1992). Perceptual and decisional separability. In G. F. Ashby (Ed.), Multidimensional models of perception and cognition (pp. 147-180). Hillsdale, NJ. 3. Melara, R. D. (1992). The concept of perceptual similarity: From psychophysics to cognitive psychology. In D. Algom (Ed.) Psychophysical approaches to cognition (pp. 303-388). Amsterdam. 4. Kemler Nelson, D. G. (1993). Processing integral dimensions: The whole view. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 1105-1113. 5. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford. 6. Clausner, T. C. / Croft, W. (1999). Domains and image schemas. Cognitive Linguistics, 10, 1-31. 7. Marr, D. & Nishihara, K. H. (1978). Representation and recognition oft he spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes. Proceedings oft he Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 200, 269-294. 8. Zwarts, J. (2010a). Forceful Prepositions. In V. Evans & P. Chilton (Eds.) Language, cognition an space: The state of the art and new directions (pp. 193-214). London._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Gä I P. Gärdenfors The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014 |
||
> Counter arguments against Gärdenfors
> Counter arguments in relation to Domains
