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
Gärdenfors I 31
Domain/Langacker/Gärdenfors: (Langacker 1987) Thesis: domains are necessarily cognitive entities: mental experiences, representational spaces, concepts, or conceptual complexes. (p.147).
Definition domain/Langacker: a domain is a context for the characterization of a semantic unit.
Gärdenfors: this is a good way to look at a domain as a background in terms of gestalt psychology.
Definition abstract domain/Langacker: e.g. "ankle" presupposes fingers, this concept presupposes in turn hand, arm, body and ultimately space. This last term cannot be defined relative to other, more basic terms.
Definition basic domain/Langacker: e.g. room: cannot be defined by deeper terms. (Langacker 1987, pp. 147-148)
I 32
Abstract domain/Langacker: is then a non-basal domain, i.e. a concept or conceptual complex that is used as an area for the definition of a higher-level concept (Langacker 1987, p. 150).
1. GärdenforsVsLangacker: this is too comprehensive: there is no criterion for what is not a domain.
Solution/Gärdenfors: we need a distinction of meaning relations based on similarity judgments and other types of relations.
2. Domain/GärdenforsVsLangacker: domain should be defined on dimensionality (quality dimensions, conceptual dimensions, e.g. light/dark, large/small).
3. GärdenforsVsLangacker: Gärdenfors thesis: many aspects of meaning are based on the relation whole/part rather than on domains.
Definition Locational area/Langacker: e.g. color can be localized in the color space
The configurational domain/Langacker: e.g. circle: can be viewed as a configuration of points in the area of two-dimensional space. (Langacker, 1987, p. 149).
I 33
Criteria/Langacker: what makes an area configurable is our ability to conceive a number of separate values as part of a single gestalt. (1987, p.153)
ClausnerVsLangacker/CroftVsLangacker: this can equally well be seen locational (Clausner and Croft 1999, sec. 2.2): Space supports, locationally seen, "here", and configurational seen "circle". Tone pitch, seen locationally, supports "middle C", and as seen from a configurational point of view, "minor chord".
Gärdenfors: (pro Clausner and Croft): they are right when they apply the distinction configurational/locational to concepts rather than to domains. I go on:
Higher-level domains/Gärdenfors: if we accept them, we can assume concepts in one area as configurational, but in a different domain as described locational.
Solution/Gärdenfors: a hierarchy of areas.

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.

Langa I
Ronald W. Langacker
Foundations of Cognitive Grammar Stanford, CA 1999

Gä I
P. Gärdenfors
The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014

> Counter arguments against Langacker

> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-07-23