Synthese

, Volume 195, Issue 2, pp 549–569 | Cite as

Levels of communication and lexical semantics

Article

Abstract

The meanings of words are not permanent but change over time. Some changes of meaning are quick, such as when a pronoun changes its reference; some are slower, as when two speakers find out that they are using the same word in different senses; and some are very slow, such as when the meaning of a word changes over historical time. A theory of semantics should account for these different time scales. In order to describe these different types of meaning changes, I present an analysis of three levels of communication: instruction, coordination of common ground and coordination of meaning. My first aim is to show that these levels must be considered when discussing lexical semantics. A second aim is to use the levels to identify the communicative roles of some of the main word classes, in particular nouns, adjectives, verbs, indexicals and quantifiers. I argue that the existence of word classes can, to a large extent, be explained by the communicative needs that arise on the different levels.

Keywords

Lexical semantics Communication Conceptual spaces Coordination of meaning Word classes 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I want to thank the Swedish Research Council for support to the Linnaeus environment Thinking in Time: Cognition, Communication and Learning. Parts of this article were written while I was a Fellow at the Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced Study (STIAS), which provided a generous environment for research. I am grateful to STIAS and to the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation for their support during this stay.

References

  1. Andersson, T. (1994). Conceptual Polemics: Dialectic Studies of Concept Formation. Lund: Lund University Cognitive Studies 27.Google Scholar
  2. Bara, B. G. (2010). Cognitive Pragmatics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates, E. (Ed.). (1976). Language and Context: The Acquisition of Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Yami, H. (2004). Logic and Natural Language: On Plural Reference and Its Semantic and Logical Significance. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  5. Bickerton, D. (1990). Language and Species. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brinck, I. (2004). The pragmatics of imperative and declarative pointing. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3, 429–446.Google Scholar
  7. Carlson, G. N. (2009). Generics and concepts. In Pelletier Francis J., (Ed), Kinds, Things and Stuff: Mass Terms and Generics (pp. 16–36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Chierchia, G. (1995). Dynamics of meaning: Anaphora, presupposition and the theory of grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, E. V. (1978). From gesture to word: On the natural history of deixis in language acquisition. In J. S. Bruner & A. Garton (Eds.), Human growth and development (pp. 85–120). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Clark, H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Clark, H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Croft, W. (2001). Radical construction grammar: Syntactic theory in typological perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Culicover, P. W., & Jackendoff, R. (2005). Simpler syntax. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diessel, H. (2006). Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17, 463–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dixon, R. M. W. (2004). Adjective classes in typological perspective. In R. M. V. Dixon & A. Y. Aikhenvald (Eds.), Adjective classes: A cross-linguistic typology (pp. 1–49). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
  17. Fauconnier, G. (1984). Espaces mentaux: Aspects de la construction du sens dans les langues naturelles. Paris: Les éditions de minuit.Google Scholar
  18. Frännhag, H. (2010). Interpretive Functions of Adjectives in English: A Cognitive Approach. Doctoral Thesis. Lund: Centre for Languages and Literature, Lund University.Google Scholar
  19. Galantucci, B. (2005). An experimental study of the emergence of human communication systems. Cognitive Science, 29, 737–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gärdenfors, P. (1988). Knowledge in flux: Modeling the dynamics of epistemic states. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Gärdenfors, P. (1993). The emergence of meaning. Linguistics and Philosophy, 16, 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gärdenfors, P. (2000). Conceptual spaces: The geometry of thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Gärdenfors, P. (2014). Geometry of meaning: Semantics based on conceptual spaces. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Gärdenfors, P., & Warglien, M. (2013). The development of semantic space for pointing and verbal communication. In J. Hudson, U. Magnusson, & C. Paradis (Eds.), Conceptual spaces and the construal of spatial meaning: Empirical evidence from human communication (pp. 29–42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Garrod, S., & Anderson, A. (1987). Saying what you mean in dialogue: A study in conceptual and semantic coordination. Cognition, 27, 181–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haspelmath, M. (2003). The geometry of grammatical meaning: Semantic maps and cross-linguistic comparison. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new psychology of language (Vol. 2, pp. 211–242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  27. Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of cognition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kemp, C., & Regier, T. (2012). Kinship categories across languages reflect general communicative principles. Science, 336, 1049–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krauss, R. M., & Glucksberg, S. (1977). Social and non-social speech. Scientific American, 236, 100–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krifka, M. (2013). Definitional generics. In A. Mari, C. Beyssade, & F. Prete (Eds.), Genericity (pp. 372–389). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Langacker, R. W. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar (Vol. 1). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Langacker, R. W. (2003). One any. Korean Linguistics Today and Tomorrow: Proceedings of the 2002 International Conference on Korean Linguistics. Seoul: Association for Korean Linguistics, 282–300.Google Scholar
  34. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lawler, J. M. (1973). Studies in English generics. University of Michigan Papers in Linguistics.Google Scholar
  36. Lewis, D. K. (1969). Convention: A philosophical study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lewis, D. K. (1970). General semantics. Synthese, 22, 18–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Markman, E. M. (1992). Constraints on word learning: Speculations about their nature, origins, and domain specificity. In M. R. Gunnar & M. P. Maratsos (Eds.), Modularity and constraints in language and cognition: The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (pp. 59–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  40. Markman, E. M. (1994). Constraints on word meaning in early language acquisition. Lingua, 92, 199–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McDonough, L. (2002). Basic-level nouns: First learned but misunderstood. Journal of Child Language, 29, 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McKay, T. J. (2006). Plural predication. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Montague, R. (1974). In: R. H. Thomason (Ed.) Formal philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Paradis, C. (2005). Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics. Axiomathes, 15, 541–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27, 169–190.Google Scholar
  46. Putnam, H. (1975). The meaning of ’meaning’. In K. Gunderson (Ed.), Language, mind and knowledge (pp. 131–193). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  47. Rappaport Hovav, M. & Levin, B. (2010). Reflections on manner/result complementarity. In M. Rappaport Hovav, D. Doron. & I. Sichel (Eds.), Lexical semantics, syntax, and event structure (pp. 21–38). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Ravid, D. (2006). Semantic development in textual contexts during the school years: Noun scale analyses. Journal of Child Language, 33, 791–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schelling, T. (1960). The strategy of conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Solt, S. (2011). How many most’s? In I. Reich, E. Horch, & D. Pauly (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung (Vol. 15 pp. 565–579). Saarbrücken: Universaar—Saarland University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. Syntax and Semantics, 9, 315–332.Google Scholar
  52. Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Talmy, L. (1988). Force dynamics in language and cognition. Cognitive Science, 12, 49–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tomasello, M. (1999). The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Van Benthem, J. (1986). Essays in logical semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Van Benthem, J. (2008). Games that make sense: Logic, language and multi-agent interaction. In K. Apt & R. van Rooij (Eds.), New perspectives on games and interaction (pp. 197–209). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Verhagen, A. (2005). Constructions of intersubjectivity: Discourse, syntax, and cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Warglien, M., Gärdenfors, P., & Westera, M. (2012). Event structure, conceptual spaces and the semantics of verbs. Theoretical Linguistics, 38, 159–193.Google Scholar
  59. Warglien, M., & Gärdenfors, P. (2013). Semantics, conceptual spaces, and the meeting of minds. Synthese, 190, 2165–2193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Warglien, M., & Gärdenfors, P. (2014). Meaning negotiation, submitted.Google Scholar
  61. Winter, S. (1998). Expectations and Linguistic Meaning. Lund: Lund University Cognitive Studies 71.Google Scholar
  62. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cognitive ScienceLund UniversityLundSweden
  2. 2.Stellenbosch Institute for Advanced StudyWallenberg Research Centre at Stellenbosch UniversityStellenboschSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations