Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

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 Item Excerpt Meta data

Books on Amazon:
Peter Gärdenfors
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).
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.
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), Clausner and Croft (1999, p.1)
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/conceptual domain/Gärdenfors) can be used for the representation of general patterns and configurations (Marr and Nishihara, 1978). 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) - 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.

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.

Gä I
P. Gärdenfors
The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014

> Counter arguments against Gärdenfors

Authors A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  

Concepts A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  

> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-09-24