Lexicon of Arguments


Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


 

Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.

The author or concept searched is found in the following 5 entries.
Disputed term/author/ism Author
Entry
Reference
Concepts Langacker
 
Books on Amazon
Gärdenfors I 34
Concepts/Langacker/Gärdenfors: (Langacker 1987): Thesis: one concept presupposes another concept. GärdenforsVsLangacker: this is ambiguous: a) a car part can be replaced, the car remains a car - b) but this is not the case with color compositions. Therefore, the color space has no meronic structure. (Meronomic: part-whole structure). Solution/Gärdenfors: my assumption of the convexity of regions: what lies between two points in the conceptual domain has the same property as the concepts located at the two outer points. (> domain/Gärdenfors).

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


Gä I
P. Gärdenfors
The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014
Dimensions Gärdenfors
 
Books on Amazon:
Peter Gärdenfors
I 35
Dimension/Domains/Gärdenfors: even feelings can be ordered according to dimensions: see Osgood, Suci & Tannenbaum, 1957, Russell, 1980;) GärdenforsVsLangacker. LangackerVsGärdenfors: (Langacker 1987, p. 151).

Gä I
P. Gärdenfors
The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014

Dimensions Langacker
 
Books on Amazon
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".

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


Gä I
P. Gärdenfors
The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014
Domains Gärdenfors
 
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.

Gä I
P. Gärdenfors
The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014

Domains Langacker
 
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.

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


Gä I
P. Gärdenfors
The Geometry of Meaning Cambridge 2014