Abstract
The cornerstone of modern linguistic semantics is, of course, the concept of meaning. Alternative names of this concept are sense (Frege’s Sinn) and intension, and its content has been largely undisputed within linguistics proper, if we disregard so-called cognitivist approaches. Ever since (Frege, Zeitschrift Für Philosophie Und Philosophische Kritik 100:25–50, 1892) Über Sinn und Bedeutung, the aim of this concept was to capture the intuition that linguistic signs have a property that allows people to use them for making themselves understood, and that the property in question has to do something with the relationship of a sign to its intended referent (nominatum, denotatum, Frege’s Bedeutung). Unfortunately, no version of this approach to meaning is prepared to account for the cognitive aspect of acquiring and using linguistic signs. Frege himself, while recognising that signs, in addition to their meaning, are also associated with an image (Frege’s Vorstellung) in each speaker’s mind who is familiar with the sign, he seems to assume that images are irrelevant from the point of view of meanings, in the same way as the mental processes that take place in the audience’s mind. In general, it seems that modern formal semantics not only disregards all psychological phenomena related to semantics, such as associations, (non-conventional) figurative uses, phylo- and ontogenetic semantic changes etc., but it is also unable to offer a framework for treating them. This paper is not a manifesto in favour of cognitivist semantics. As a matter of fact, I will not be concerned with that alternative movement at all, because I believe they have also failed to establish a link between the cognitive aspects mentioned above, on the one hand, and the central concepts of mainstream semantic theories, on the other. (By “mainstream semantics” I mean those theories which, following Richard Montague’s work, think of the explanation of interpretation as a production line starting from a linguistic representation, going through disambiguation, then logical representation, then model theoretic interpretation.) Instead, I will focus on the origins and nature of the gap between the highly abstract concept of sense and the rather concrete mental aspects of language use. I will conclude that Frege’s original proposal about senses would be worth taking more seriously than his followers did, and that it has an inherently cognitive character, although Frege himself does not dwell upon that aspect, which is related to the interaction between speakers and addressees. Thus I claim that there is a way of filling the cognitive gap while being true to Frege’s ideas. Furthermore, I will argue that, under that view, models themselves must have a cognitive character, and the relations between senses and referents (speaker’s and hearer’s) are stochastic rather than deterministic.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
And even in psychology. As a matter of fact, my motivation for contributing this paper to Csaba Pléh’s Festschrift is that I probably heard about Frege from him. My impression was that he was puzzled by Frege’s work, whom he considered both anti-psychologist, but at the same time a precursor of present-day scientific psychology (see Pléh, 2009, 2014, 2015).
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). In G. J. Warnock (Ed.), Sense and sensibilia. Oxford University Press.
Carnap, R. (1947). Meaning and necessity. University of Chicago Press.
Ciardelli, I., Groenendijk, J., & Roelofsen, F. (Eds.). (2019). Inquisitive semantics. Oxford University Press.
Dijkstra, E. W. (1976). A discipline of programming. Prentice-Hall.
Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedutung. Zeitschrift Für Philosophie Und Philosophische Kritik, 100, 25–50.
Geurts, B. (1997). Good news about the description theory of names. Journal of Semantics, 14, 319–348.
Groenendijk, J., & Stokhof, M. (1990). Dynamic Montague Grammar. In L. Kálmán & L. Pólos (Eds.), Papers from the Second Symposium on Logic and Language (pp. 3–48). Akadémiai Kiadó.
Heim, I. (1983). File change semantics and the familiarity theory of definiteness. In R. Bäuerle, Ch. Schwarze, & A. von Stechow (Eds.), Meaning, use and interpretation of language (pp. 164–189). De Gruyter.
Kamp, H. (1981). A theory of truth and semantic representation. In J. Groenendijk, Th. Janssen, & M. Stokhof (Eds.), Formal Methods In The Study Of Language (pp. 277–322). Mathematisch Centrum.
Kaplan, D. (1989). Demonstratives. In J. Almog, J. Perry, & H. Wettstein (Eds.), Themes from Kaplan (pp. 481–563). Oxford University Press.
Kneale, W. (1962). Modality de dicto and de re. In E. Nagel, P. Suppes, & A. Tarski (Eds.), Logic, Methodology and the Philosophy of Science: Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress (pp. 622–633). Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume I: theoretical prerequisites. Stanford University Press.
Pléh, Cs. (2009). “A kognitív tudomány flörtje és civakodós házasságai a filozófiával: Wundt köpenyéből bújnának ki Fodor moduljai?” [The flirt and conflictual marriages of cognitive science with philosophy: Do Fodor’s module come out from under Wundt’s overcoat?]. Világosság, Summer, 55–65.
Pléh, Cs. (2014). “Hogy vezet el a bölcsészet lenézése a tudás lenézéséhez?” [How does the contempt of philology lead to the contempt of knowledge?]. Magyar Tudomány, 6, 668–672.
Pléh, Cs. (2015). “Frege visszajön a kognitív tudomány hátsó ajtaján” [Frege comes back through the back door of cognitive science]. In A tanulás és gondolkodás keretei [The limits of learning and thinking] (pp. 325–332). Typotex.
Montague, R. (1973). “The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English”. In K. J. J. Hintikka, J. M. E. Moravcsik, & P. Suppes (eds.), Approaches to natural language (pp. 221–242). Synthese Library 49. Reidel.
Wittgenstein, L. (1921). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kálmán, L. (2022). The Cognitive Gap in Modern Semantics. In: Gervain, J., Csibra, G., Kovács, K. (eds) A Life in Cognition. Language, Cognition, and Mind, vol 11. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66175-5_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-66175-5_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-66174-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-66175-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)